Artikel PDF

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
A STUDY OF INTERACTION IN TEACHING ENGLISH TO

YOUNG LEARNER (TEYL) CLASSROOM USING FLANDERS’
INTERACTION ANALYSIS SYSTEM
A THESIS
Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

for the Degree of Magister Hummaniora (M.Hum)
in English Language Studies
by
Martha Septiningtyas
Student Number: 146332016
THE GRADUATE PROGRAM IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE STUDIES

SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY
YOGYAKARTA
2016
A STUDY OF INTERACTION IN TEACHING ENGLISH TO

YOUNG LEARNER (TEYL) CLASSROOM USING FLANDERS’
INTERACTION ANALYSIS SYSTEM
A THESIS
Presented as a Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

to Obtain the Magister Humaniora (M.Hum.)Degree
in English Language Studies
by
Student Number: 146332016
THE GRADUATE PROGRAM IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE STUDIES

SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY
YOGYAKARTA
2016
i
ii
iii
DEDICATION PAGE
This thesis is dedicated to Jesus Christ, my family and friend who always helped me,
motivated and inspired me to do my best in order to finish my thesis. My father, Drs.
Dwi Bukapto, my mother Prihatin Ekowati, SPd, and my beloved young cute sisters
Elsa Aprilia and Merry Meilani. I love you all and truly fortune to have you in my
life.
HOPE
“There is nothing you can’t achieve with
time, attention and effort”
iv
v
vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First of all I would like to express my deepest thanks to Almighty God, Jesus
Christ, who has supported, helped and given me a chance to continue my education at
The Graduate Program in English Language Studies (ESL) Sanata Dharma
University. Only through his blessing and unconditional love, I could complete this
thesis.
Secondly, I would like to say my deepest thanks to my thesis advisor Dr. B.B.
Dwijatmoko, M.A. for the guidance, support and encouragement. I am really grateful
for his suggestions and advices from the beginning when I started write this study.
Many thanks are also expressed to F.X Mukarto.Ph.D., Dr. J. Bismoko and Dr.
E.Sunarto, M.Hum as my thesis reviewers for their suggestions to improve this thesis.
Furthermore, J.S.M Pudji Lestari, S.Pd. M.Hum, for her suggestion to find the topic
and school for this research to support this thesis.
Thirdly, I would like to thank the principal of Ananda Mentari Kindergarten
School, Mrs. Bernadetta Dwi Retno Aryanti, S.Psi. for her willingness to be
interviewed, reliable cooperation and for allowing me to do research in her school.
My truly thanks also addressed to all students of Kindergarten A and B as the
participants in this research. To Miss. Nining Sumarsih, S,Sos, Miss. Henny Madya
Sari, SS as the classroom teachers who really welcomed me and gave good
cooperation in her class during observation times and interview.
Fourthly, my special gratitude goes to all the members of my family in
Klampok Banjarnegara. My beloved father Drs. Dwi Bukapto, my beloved mother
vii
Prihatin Ekowati.SPd, my lovely sisters Elsa Aprilia and Merry Meilani. I would like
to thank them for never ending understanding, supporti both financial and spirit, love,
pray. All my family for their loves, sympathies and cares so I could complete this
study. Since family is a unit of people that loves and supports each other through
good times and bad times. They gave wonderful care, attention and understanding
during the difficult time in finishing my thesis. The one and only, dear my future-
husband abang Aryond Silalahi, S.T. who shared the happiness, sadness togetherness
and value advices. Thank you so much for your dedication and valuable supports.
Special thank also addressed to my sista Sari who supports both my thesis and my up
and down of my challenging life. Adit & Indra as my IT consultant, who helped me
to ensure the format. Agnes Mira, my best friend and my private counselor. I wish to
thank to my thesis reader for your willingness to read and comments on this thesis.
The last but the least, many thanks are dedicated to Marita, the one who help me to
ensure the format and grammatical mistake. Finally, I expect that this thesis would be
useful for further study and education practitioner.
May God always bless us!
Yogjakarta, August 24th, 2016
viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE PAGE…………………………………………………………………………..i
APPROVAL SHEET……………………………………………………………….. ..ii
THESIS DEFENSE APPROVAL PAGE…………………………….…………….. iii
DEDICATION PAGE………………………………………………………………..iv
STATEMENT OF WORK ORIGINALITY…………………………………………v
LEMBAR PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN……………………………………..…….. vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS………………………………………………………… vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS……………………………………………………………. ix
LIST OF TABLES………………………………………………………………….. xii
LIST OF FIGURES………………………………………………………………… xiii
LIST OF GRAPHS…………………………………………………………………. xiv
LIST OF APPENDICES………………………………………………………. xv
ABSTRACT………………………………………………………………………... xvi
ABSTRAK……………………………………………………………………………………xviii
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background of the Study……………………………………………………… 1
1.2. Problem Identification………………………………………………………… 5
1.3. Problem Limitations…………………………………………………………. 7
1.4. Statement of Research Questions……………………………………………... 7
1.5. The Research Goals…………………………………………………………… 7
1.6. Research Benefits……………………………………………………………... 8
CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Theoretical Review…………………………………………………………. 10
2.1.1 Teaching English to Young Learner (TEYL)………………………….. 10
2.1.2 The Classroom Interaction………………………………………………. 13
2.1.3 Student Talk and Teacher Talk………………………………………… 17
2.1.4 Theory Basis of Adjacency Pairs and Teacher-student interaction…….. 18
2.1.5 IRF (Initiation—Response-Feedback)…………………………………. 22
ix
2.1.6 Flanders’s Interaction Analysis Category (FIACS) Technique 25

2.1.7 Ananda Mentari Kindergarten Yogyakarta…………………………….. 28
2.2 Related Studies………………………………………………………………. 29
2.3 Theoretical Framework………………………………………………………..30
CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY
3.1. Research Design……………………………………………………………... 35
3.2. Research Procedure………………………………………………………….. 36
3.3. Nature of Data……………………………………………………………….. 37
3.4. Data Sources…………………………………………………………………. 38
3.5. Research Instruments………………………………………………………… 40
3.6. Data Collection……………………………………………………………… 43
3.7. Data Analysis………………………………………………………………… 45
3.8. Trustworthiness……………………………………………………………… 49
CHAPTER IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
4.1. Results……………………………………………………………………. 58
4.1.1 The general description of teaching and learning process………………… 58
4.1.2 Interaction Event………………………………………………………….. 60
4.1.3 The Result of Interview…………………………………………………… 66
4.2. Discussions………………………………………………………………... 72
4.2.1 Predominant Patterns of Young Learner Classroom Interaction………….. 73
4.2.1.1 Student Participation………………………………………………….. 73
4.2.1.2 Content Cross…………………………………………………………. 85
4.2.1.3 Teacher Support………………………………………………………. 96
4.2.1.4 Teacher Control……………………………………………………… 106
4.3. Types of Student talk and Teacher Interaction……………………………... 113
4.3.1 Indirect Talk and Direct Talk…………………………………………... 114
4.3.2 Types Classroom Interaction…………………………………………… 116
4.4 Summary……………………………………………………………………. 124
x
CHAPTER V CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATION

5.1. Conclusion………………………………………………………………….. 127
5.2. Recommendation…………………………………………………………… 129
BIBLIOGRAPHY ……………………………………………………………...…135
Appendix 1: Matrix of Flanders Interaction Analysis in four meetings…………… 136
Appendix 2: The Overall Result of Classroom Interaction………………………... 138
Appendix 3: The Comparison of teacher talk and student talk……………………. 139
Appendix 4: Blueprint Observation Protocol……………………………………… 140
Appendix 5: Observational Protocol Result of First Meeting……………………... 143
Appendix 6: Observational Protocol Result of Second Meeting………………….. 155
Appendix 7: Observational Protocol Result of Third Meeting……………………. 167
Appendix 8: Observational Protocol Result of Fourth Meeting…………………… 180
Appendix 9: Blueprint for Interview guideline……………………………………. 196
Appendix 10: Interview result with classroom teacher…………………………… 200
Appendix 11: Interview result with school principle……………………………... 214
Appendix12: Pictures of Learning Activities ……...……………………………… 220
xi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 Characteristics of Young Learners……………………………. 11
Table 2.2 Flander’s Interaction Analysis Categories …………………… 25
Table 2.3 Research concept plotting……………………………………..…33
Table 3.1 Ten rules for deciding code ……………………………………. 41
Table 3.2 Matrix of Flander Interaction Analysis………………………… 42
Table 3.3 How to put a code of classroom verbal interaction………..…… 44
Table 3.4 Observation Data Transcription………………………………… 46
Table 3.5 Guideline for data analysis….………………………………….... 51
Table 3.6.Table qualitative data collection types and sources of data…….. 52
Table 3.7 Verbal Interaction categorization…………………..................... 53
Table 3.8 Sample of interview questions with classroom teacher………… 55
Table 3.9 Sample of interview questions with school principle…………... 56
Table 4.1 Classroom interaction pattern in 1st meeting..………………….. 62
Table 4.2 Classroom interaction pattern in 2nd meeting …………………... 63
Table 4.3 Classroom interaction pattern in 3rd meeting ……....................... 63
Table 4.4 Classroom interaction pattern in 4th meeting …………............... 63
Table 4.5 The Results of Student’s Talk and Teacher’s Talk....................... 65
Table 4.6 Summary Result of Classroom Pattern Interaction....................... 66
Table 4.7 Sample of interview with the teacher........................................... 68
Table 4.8 Sample of interview with the school principal.......................... 68
xii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1 Input and Attributes in L2 Acqusition......................................... 19
Figure 2.2 Matrix of Flanders Interaction.................................................... 27
Figure 2.3 Conceptual Framework................................................................ 32
Figure 3.1 Research Procedure...................................................................... 37
Figure 3.2 Data Analysis Tehnique.............................................................. 57
xiii
LIST OF GRAPHS
Graph 4.1 The Student Participantion Pattern.................................................74
Graph 4.2 The Distribution of Student Talk....................................................75
Graph 4.3 The Content Cross Pattern...............................................................85
Graph 4.4 The Distribution of Lecturing and Questioning..............................86
Graph 4.5 The Teacher Support Pattern...........................................................96
Graph 4.6 Accept Feeling, Encouragement& Use Student Idea.................... ..97
Graph 4.7 The Teacher Control Pattern......................................................... 106
Graph 4.8 Distribution of Giving Direction and Criticizing...........................107
Graph 4.9 The results of Direct and Indirect Influence in Each Meeting.......114
Graph 4.10 Teachers’ Talk and Students’ Talk Ratio.....................................116
xiv
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix 1 Matrix of Flanders Interaction Analysis in Four Meetings ...................136
Appendix 2 The Overall Result of Interaction based Flanders Formulas...............137
Appendix 3 The Comparison of Teacher Talk and Student Talk..............................138
Appendix 4 The Blueprint of Observation Protocol……..........................................139
Appendix 5 The Observation Protocol Result in 1st Meeting ...................................142
Appendix 6 The Observation Protocol Result in 2nd Meeting ................................153
Appendix 7 The Observation Protocol Result in 3rd Meeting..................................164
Appendix 8 The Observation Protocol Result in 4th Meeting...................................176
Appendix 9 The Blueprint for Interview Guideline..................................................191
Appendix 10 The Interview Result with Classroom Teacher ...................................195
Appendix 11 The Interview Result with School Principle .......................................209
Appendix 12 Pictures of Teaching Learning Activities ..........................................215
xv
ABSTRACT
Martha Septiningtyas (2016). A Study of Interaction in Teaching English to Young

Learner (TEYL) Classroom Using Flanders’ Interaction Analysis System. The
Graduate Program in English Language Studies, Sanata Dharma University.
This study is focused on the young learner classroom interaction at Kindergarten

school level. The goals of this study are (a) to indentify the predominant interaction
patterns and (b) to discover how the interaction happened. Since, the interaction
patterns influenced the way the teacher delivers her talk and how the students produce
the target language during the interaction.
This study is the classroom-centered research. It concentrates on the classroom
interaction, in order to gain insights and increase our understanding of young learner
classroom interaction. The classroom-research was done to contribute to the second
language teaching field for young learner classroom. The study was conducted at
Ananda Mentari Kindergarten School Yogyakarta. It has a unique concept of
teaching. They have philosophy to build relationship as mother and children not as a
teacher. The point is that create “second home” for students when their mother are
working.
The participants in this research were 15 students of class A and B, a non-native
classroom teacher and the school principal of Ananda Mentari Kindergarten School
Yogyakarta. An interaction analysis system was applied in this research called
Flanders Interaction Analysis System. The data were collected by observing
(observational protocol) and video recording the teacher-students interaction during
teaching-learning process. The data were confirmed by doing the unstructured
interview with a classroom teacher and the school principal.
The finding of this research, teacher’s talk (49.5%) and student’s talk (47.2%)
from total utterances found. It was found that there was not so much different
percentage between teacher’s and student’s talk. It indicated that the interaction went
smoothly and active. The students were active in producing their talk and the teacher
delivered the suitable talk to stimulate students. The analysis results show that the
most predominant-pattern during the interaction was student participation. It
emphasized on the student’s responding talk and the student’s initiating talk. The
second predominant pattern was content cross, to show how often the teacher
delivered lecturing and questioning talk to the students. The third predominant
pattern was teacher support, it consisted of accept or uses student ideas, praising &
encouraging and accept feeling. Another finding was the type of teacher talk, indirect
talk became the most dominant pattern also 75%. It indicated that, the teacher gave
the freedom and applied the flexible pattern for the students to respond and initiate
their opinion. Those interaction patterns will help the classroom teacher in promoting
and increasing the quality of young learner classroom interaction.
The researcher hopes this study will give advantages for kindergarten teachers in
the way they use English to young learner classroom. The result of this study used as
recommendation and evaluation for the teacher. In addition, for the school to improve
their quality.
xvi
Finally, the young learner classroom interaction at Ananda Mentari Kindergarten

School as the model for comprehensible interaction. As the researcher found that the
interaction pattern was dominated by student participation talk. In addition, the result
of this study give guidance on how to build, prepare and manage the school
environment. Such as regulation and atmosphere to support teaching and learning
process of using English during teaching and learning process.
Keywords: Teacher talk, Student talk, Young learners, Classroom Interaction

Pattern, Classroom-Centered Research, Flanders Interaction Analysis System.
xvii
ABSTRAK
Martha Septiningtyas (2016). Analisis Interaksi Siswa dan Guru di TEYL

(Pengajaran Bahasa Inggris Siswa Usia Dini) Menggunakan Sistem analisa
ineteraksi Flanders’. Program Paska Sarjana Kajian Bahasa Inggris. Universitas
Sanata Dharma, Yogyakarta.
Penelitian ini difokuskan pada interaksi siswa usia dini pada kelas taman kanak-
kanak. Tujuan dari penelitian ini adalah untuk mengetahui pola interaksi dan
bagaimana interaksi tersebut berlangsung. Antara siswa dan guru kelas yang terjadi di
kelas Taman Kanan-Kanak. Khususnya dalam proses pembelajaran bahasa Inggris,
yang bertempat di TK Ananda Mentari Yogyakarta. Berkaitan dengan hal tersebut
maka peneliti mengajukan dua pertanyaan untuk di jawab dalam penelitian ini: Pola
interaksi apa yang mendominasi dalam interaksi guru dan siswa usia dini? Bagaimana
interaksi yang terjadi di TK Ananda Mentari Jogjakarta?
Penelitian ini menggunakan pendekatan penelitian-kelas yang banyak
berkontribusi dalam peningkatan qualititas pembelajaran. Khususnya yang berkaitan
erat dengan penggunaan bahasa Inggris di kelas muris usia dini. Penelitian ini
diselenggarakan di TK Ananda Mentari Yogjakarta. Sekolah ini memiliki konsep
pembelajaran yang berbeda dari sekolah pada umumnya. Sekolah ini menerapkan
philosofi mengenai hubungan yang erat antara ibu dan anak. Latar belakang yang
penting adalah menciptakan “rumah ke dua” bagi siswa, di saat ibu mereka pergi
bekerja. Bahasa Inggris merupakan bahasa pengantar utama yang di gunakan dalam
komunikasi. Semua guru dan siswa di wajibkan untuk berbicara dalam bahasa Inggris
pada semua aktifitas di sekolah.
Partisipan penelitian adalah 15 orang siswa dari kelas A dan B, seorang guru
Taman kanak- kanak dan kepala sekolah dari Ananda Mentari yang sekaligus sebagai
pendiri sekolah. Dalam rangka mengetahui pola interaksi yang terjadi antara siswa
dan guru. Sebuah system analisis di aplikasikan dalam penelitian ini yang disebut:
Flanders Interaction Analysis System. Data penelitian di peroleh dari pengamatan di
kelas dan rekaman video interaksi guru dan siswa saat proses belajar mengajar.
Pengamatan di kelas di lakukan empat kali selama 50 menit di setiap pertemuan. Data
di dukung dengan hasil wawancara dengan guru pengampu kelas dan kepala sekolah
yang sekaligus pendiri sekolah.
Data mengindikasikan bahwa siswa sangat aktif dalam berpartisipasi sepanjang
proses pembelajaran di kelas. Data kuantitatif menunjukan 49.5% adalah teacher talk
dan 47.2% adalah student talk. Hasil penelitian menunjukan bahwa pola yang paling
mendominasi adalah student participation (partisipasi siswa). Menitikberatkan pada
partisipasi siswa dalam bentuk respon siswa dan inisiatif siswa pada diskusi di kelas.
Pola interaksi kedua yang mendominasi adalah content cross. Menitikberatkan pada
penjelasan guru dan pertanyaan guru. Pola ke tiga yang mendominasi adalah teacher
support (dukungan guru). Di berikan dalam bentuk menerima gagasan siswa,
mendukung dan menghargai pendapat atau tindakan siswa. Pola interaksi tersebut
yang akan membantu guru untuk mendukung dan meningkatkan kualitasi interaksi
xviii
siswa usia dini. Hal lain yang di temukan dalam penelitian ini adalah dominan nya
pola jenis tuturan guru (teacher talk) di kelas. Indirect talk (tuturan-tidak langusng)
menjadi pilihan guru dalam berinteraksi, dibuktikan hasil kuantitative menunjukan
75%. Ini mengindikasikan bahwa guru memberikan keleluasaan pada siswa untuk
mengungkapkan pendapat mereka tanpa harus takut di salahkan oleh guru.
Peneliti berharap bahwa hasil dari penelitian ini dapat meningkatkan kesadaran
dan kajian tambahan. Mengenai pentingnya pola interaksi yang tepat untuk
meningkatkan kualitas interaksi di kelas dengan anak usia dini menggunakan bahasa
Inggris. Pada khususnya untuk sekolah tempat di adakan penelitian ini. Hasil dari
penelitian ini dapat di gunakan sebagai kajian dan kritik yang membangun untuk
meningkatkan dan mempersiapkan guru, siswa dan lingkungan untuk terciptanya
interaksi yang harmonis untuk mendapat hasil pembelajaran yang maksimal.
Keywords: Teacher talk, Student talk, Siswa usia dini, Pola interaksi kelas,
Penelitian-kelas, Flanders Interaction Analysis System
xix
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
The study is focused on teacher talk and student talk in young learners’
classroom interaction at Ananda Mentari Kindergarten School. It aims at exploring
the patterns of interaction and how the interactions happened in kindergarten level.
This chapter contains several sections: the background of the study, problem
identification, problem limitations, and statement of research questions, research
goals and research benefits.
1.1 Background of the Study
In a foreign language situation, the learner depend almost entirely on the school
for the language input. The situation is related to the classroom as a crucial place for
students to practice the target language. Further, Cameron (2008) said that foreign
language learner, a classroom is the basic part for the students to use and to
experience the target language. In the classroom, a communication between the
teacher and the students is designed to create compressible classroom interaction.
The interaction in young learner classroom has different pattern in term of
teacher talk and student talk. Teachers who teach foreign language for young learner
usually will talk more frequently in the class, by comparing to teachers who teach
adult learners. The reason mostly is because the students’ ages of are considered as
young learner. Which are around four until five years old. The students are not able to
read and write yet to support their understanding. As a consequence, the teachers of
1
kindergarten school have certain rules as the facilitators (model) to introduce them
into the new language and also motivate them to be able to speak up in English.
The kindergarten teachers not only deliver the English course, but also builds
enough motivation for young learner to be ready and confident to learn English in the
next education levels. Later, students are able to use the target language to support
their daily needs such as reading the English book, understanding the teachers’
explanation and interacting in English both with their teachers and friends or peers. In
this case, they are motivated to use English in their daily communication naturally.
Ananda Mentari Kindergarten School Yogjakarta is the setting of this research.
The researcher has at least two reasons in choosing this school. First, the purpose of
this study is to investigate the interaction pattern of active classroom interaction in
using English. The researcher has already done a pre-observation. The result shows
that students talk is more than the teacher (51% is for student’s talk and 49% is
teacher’s talk). It means that students are active because the teacher successfully
gives enough comprehension input and lead the interaction. Second, the unique
concept of this school in is term of the teacher-student relationship. The philosophy
of being second mother. It makes a curiosity how did the interaction happen. In this
school, English is not only as a courses but also as the instruction language teaching
for the communication during the school time interaction.
In the typical classroom, there is a teacher and 15 students. The teacher spends
a good deal of her time in explaining things to the children, talking to them, showing
pictures, videos and objects, and going through the demonstrations (simulation). The
teacher assesses the student’s understanding by asking questions, assigning tasks and
supervising the accomplishment of the assigned tasks. The students alternately listen,
answer questions and perform the assigned tasks, in order to demonstrate or improve
their understanding about the certain topic. The rule of the children is to understand
and produce the target language is clearly presenting. This oversimplified the way of
talking about what it can be seen in classroom interaction in Ananda Kindergarten
School is substantially active.
In the classroom, such elements include the perceived purpose of the interaction
both locally (lesson & teacher), institutionally (school regulation) and the students’
background (Lyster, 2007). All of the children that participated in the class have been
learnt English since they were young which was around 2-3 years old. According to
Lyster (2007) when children come to school at the age of 3, they are still developing
the four skills, they have little knowledge of the world. It means that children
approach additional language in a natural manner. In this case, a natural interaction in
the class when the teacher is delivering the lesson.
As the background of the children, they live with their family which is
considered as Indonesia native. They are potentially acquire more than one language.
Since, some of the students come from bilingual family, their families have
communicated to them in more than one language, although all children speak
English in school. According to the school principal, some of students are required to
speak Indonesian or even Javanese language when they are at home.
The students’ parent had a middle-high level of literacy. There are ‘special’ rule
that student’s mother have to work with stable occupation instead of become a
housewife. The students are provided by their parents such story books, the kids’
magazines and a direct satellite television. As the result, the children are used to
communicate in English. The reason is mostly because they get many language inputs
from those media. After that, they are able to produce meaningful output, during the
process teaching and learning interaction both with teachers and their friends.
Teaching English for the kindergarten school student is very different from
teaching English in higher level (adult learner). A young learner needs certain
technique or method to achieve the target language. Teacher talk is the most common
technique to teach a foreign language to young learners rapidly. Walsh (2002),
consideres how a teacher through their choice of language, constructs or obstructs the
learner participation in face to the face classroom interaction. From his research, it is
developed a number of ways in which teachers can improve their teacher talk to
facilitate and optimize the learners’ contribution.
This study is the classroom-centered research which concentrates on a classroom
interaction. The purpose is to gain the awareness and increase the understanding
about the young learner is classroom learning. It aims to identify the occurrences that
promote learning in the classroom. In this study the researcher uses the Flanders
Interaction Analysis System (FIAS) to analyze the teacher’s talk and the student’s
talk during the interaction. Flanders (1970) originally developed a research tool,
called as Flanders Interaction Analysis System (FIAS). This systems was developed
to categories the types and the quantity of verbal interaction in TEYL (Teaching
English to young learner) to plot information on a matrix and it can help to analyze
and to complete the interpretation in chapter 4.

Based on the description above, there is a relation between young learners’
classroom interaction and the teacher talk. The teacher delivers their talk during
teaching learning activity. To support their teaching performance, motivate student to
speak up and do interaction in target language (English). A kindergarten teacher has
special or different pattern to interact with kindergarten students. It becomes the basic
consideration of the researcher to do the research with the title “A Study of Classroom
Interaction in TEYL (Teaching English to Young Learner) classroom using Flanders
Interaction Analysis System”.
1.2 Problem Identification
Analyzing the patterns through interaction is realized between foreign language
learners and the teacher. It has long been a research interest leading to a major in the
educational research involves to understand the nature and the implications of
classroom interaction. Several studies have been aiming at showing the complexity at
foreign language classroom. Flanders (1970) and Coulthard (1985) describe
classroom interaction structure; Allwright (1980) analyze patterns of participation-
turn, topics, and tasks in language learning and teaching.
Another studies of the language teacher use in class include those of Zhou, X
(1999), Zhou, Y (2010) and Nurmacitah (2010). The findings are approved the
researchers’ statement before that one-way communication class are lack of real
communicative information. Since the teacher is dominating classroom interaction,
this research helps the teacher to move away from a teacher-dominated mode. This
study guides the teacher to adopt a more student-dominated of the teaching. The
teacher should try to combine activities and materials which largely promote on the
communication between the teacher and students.
The teacher’s talk in English learning is marked as a complicated and a
problematic part especially for young learner’s classroom. In one side, the teachers
are suggested not to talk too much when they are teaching in classroom. It makes the
students become passive in initiating and responding the teacher’s utterances. Since
the student’s opportunities are limited, in this case the teacher dominated the class. In
the others hand, the quality is more crucial rather than the quantity. The quality here
means that the effectiveness to promote student to be active in class and deliver the
material become easy to understand. Realizing that, teacher domination in EFL class
is not very beneficial for improving the learners’ ability to talk in target language.
The teacher has to manage their talk into appropriate proportion. It means that
teachers have to make the learner talk more than teachers do. According to Liu
Yanfen & Zhao (2010), when the teacher talk and promote a classroom interaction. It
is called a communicative interaction. The example of teacher talk are question,
feedback, correct and the speech (explanation).
This study will concern about four patterns suggested by Flanders cited in Hai
& Bee (2007). (1) Student participation, (2) Content cross (3) Teacher control and (4)
Teacher support. The explanation of each pattern is provided in the chapter 2.
Since the students are not able to write and read yet, both teacher and learners
are non-native speakers and they have an interaction by using English, will the
teaching learning process in this class go smoothly? That is the reason why the
researcher choose the young learner classroom interaction.

1.3 Problem Limitation
The researcher would like to define the study by providing a problem
limitation. This study is concerned on the teacher talk and the student talk in the
young learners’ classroom interaction at Ananda Mentari Kindergarten School
Yogyakarta. In this research, the researcher only concerned on investigating verbal
interaction only (spoken language) that occurred between the teacher and students by
using Flanders’s Interaction Analysis System (FIAS) as an analysis technique.
This study is based on the three months observation at Ananda Mentari
Kindergarten, Yogyakarta. The duration for one observation is 60 minutes of the
teaching and learning activities. In this kindergarten, the course begin with a
discussion about certain topic follow up with the question-answer season. The
participants of this research were taken from a classroom teacher and kindergarten
student’s class (4-5 years old) of Ananda Mentari Kindergarten School Yogyakarta.
1.4 Statement of Research Questions
The research goals of this study are to find out:
(1).What are the predominant patterns of classroom interaction between the
teacher and students in young learner classroom interaction? (2). How did the
interactions happen in teaching learning at Ananda Mentari Kindergarten School
Yogyakarta?
1.5 The Research Goals
Based on the problem of the research, the goals of the research are listed below.
There are three research goals of this study (1) to find out the teacher-students
interaction patterns during classroom teaching and learning process. (2) To find out
the percentage of each interaction pattern. (3) To discover how the interactions did
happen in the classroom at Ananda Mentari Kindergarten School Yogyakarta.
1.6 Research Benefits
The result of the study can be used by the Kindergarten school teachers as a
reference to deliver the comprehensible teacher talk in young learners’ classroom
interaction. In addition, to manage the verbal interaction in the teaching and learning
process. As the result, this study can help students to achieve the target language.
Practically, the benefits of this research for the participant especially for the
kindergarten school teacher. First, teachers become more aware of their talk in the
process of a teaching and learning. They will be provided the comprehensible
understanding and reflecting about their teaching practices. Further, they become
more realize about the variety of teacher talk. Second, the teachers are provided a
comprehensible model of the teacher talk in the teaching learning process particularly
in a young learners’ classroom interaction. At least, the other teachers can apply this
teaching model in their own classroom. Third, the teacher is suggested to increase her
teacher talk (TT) productivity to address the target language to learners.
Theoretically, the result of this study will provide the comprehensible
information and several benefits in education in the general, especially in motivating
the teacher to achieve active young learner classroom interaction in target language.
The benefit is to motivate teacher to produce the comprehensible and the suitable
teacher talk (TT) in teaching learning activity. This research provides readers with
several transcriptions of various functions of verbal behavior spoken by teacher and
many kind of the student’s response. The content of information in this study is also a
particularly benefit for the school management to provide certain training and
mentoring program to support the teacher’s skill in leading the interaction with young
learner. The transcriptions can be learnt by teachers of Ananda Mentari Kindergarten
School Yogyakarta to understand and would be more aware of their talk.
In term of creating a comfortable and a lively situation, those make the students
participate actively in the target language both in the class and the daily
communication. The result of this study can also be used as a reference for the other
researchers who willing to conduct a study in English teaching-learning process in
term of the young learners’ classroom interaction.

CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter deals with the review of related literature to the present study. The
study is designed to find out the interaction pattern and describe the interaction
between teacher and students in Kindergarten school level at Ananda Mentari
Kindergarten School, Yogyakarta.
2.1. Theoretical Review
There are several major issues underline in this study. They are teaching
English for Young Learner (TEYL), Teacher talk (TT), Students talk, type of
classroom interaction, compressible input hypothesis, comprehensible output
hypothesis, interaction hypothesis, adjacency pairs, IRF (Initiation, Response,
Feedback) related studies and school profile of Ananda Mentari Kindergarten school.
2.1.1 Teaching English to Young Learner (TEYL)
In this part, the researcher gives an overview of several theories and the
research relevant to children’s language learning in the field of the teaching young
learners’ particular in the teaching English. What is the difference between the
teaching a foreign language to children and to adult learners? According to Cameron
(2002), children are often more enthusiastic and lively as learners. In other words, the
young learners want to do many classroom activities even they don’t really
understand. In other hand, Cameron (2002) also states that children also lose their
10
11
interest more quickly and hardly can keep themselves motivated on a tasks they find
difficulty.
As the general concept of teaching English to young learner’, what and how the
teachers teach young learner is different from teenagers and adult learners. It is
crucial important to show the differences of these three learner groups keeping in
mind the fact that every learner is unique and such lists are able to reflect
generalizations (Harmer,2007). Harmer (2007) cited in Ersoz, A (2008) provides the
special characteristic of the young learner as seen in table 2.1.
Table 2.1 Characteristics of young learners
Young Learners Characteristics

Age : 3-6 years old
Grade : Pre-school Education
Language focus/skills used:
Listening & Speaking : Vocabulary items (concrete & familiar objects)
No grammar teaching (exposed to chunks through song and classroom language)
No reading & writing
Characteristics:
Low concentration span but easily excited
High motivation; active involvement
Love talking but problems in sharing
Repetition and revision is needed
Limited motor skills (using a pen and scissors) but kinesthetic and energetic
Love stories, fantasy, imagination, art drawing and coloring
The general description of teaching English for young learners is related to the
teachers’ verbal action behavior during teaching learning process. The following
information is about how teachers have to do in SLA (second language acquisition)
teaching environment for young learners based on (Harmer, 2007). (1) Teachers
12
should have rich repertoire of activities to help young learners receive information
from a variety of sources and plan a range of activities for a given time period. (2)
Teachers should work with students individually or in group. (3) Teacher need to be
aware of the students’ interest to motivate them. Beyond that teachers are better to
link or relate teaching to everyday interests and experiences.
2.1.1.2 Scaffolding
Vygotsky has developed the scaffolding theory that has come about the concept
of a Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). The ZPD theory suggested that students
should be judged on what they can do with the assistance of an expert rather what
they are capable of doing on their own (Cameron 2002). According to this theory,
teachers are able to deliver the instruction language (new language) that students are
not familiar with or beyond their potential. Vygotsky suggests a theory of scaffolding
that the language of adult use is mediate the world for children and help them to solve
the problem. The teacher leads the student’s intention during the interaction in order
to help children. In completing the task are not yet able to do for themselves
(Cameron, 2002). Furthermore, Daniels (2002) concerns that the Zone of Proximal
Development (ZPD) emphasizes on teacher-learners collaboration and negotiation.
Cole (2002) argues that extended understanding of scaffolding in the language
and education is needed. Since young learners have the very limited knowledge. It is
better for the teacher to give very specific scaffolding (guidance) to make students
understand on how to use the language. Cameron (2002) stated that the young
speaker around five years old, they are lack the awareness to cater for other
participants in discourse, and are not skillful enough to plan their talk. In this case,
13
the teacher requires to give clear guidance for students to take nature of a
conversation. The conversation is not dominated by the teacher, the conversation
should base on students’ knowledge, and it has controlled from the teacher to ensure
the topic.
2.1.2 The Classroom Interaction
In order to describe about what happened in the classroom and to know better
what exactly happed in a language classroom, in this research, knowledge about the
classroom interaction particularly in TEYL (teaching English for young learner)
context needs to be increased. Tsui (2008) defines a classroom as a place where more
than two people gather together for the purpose of learning, with one having the role
of the teacher. It means that the communication between the teacher and students in
classroom goes constantly. Another definition is provided by Richard in Ticko (2009)
he states that pattern of verbal communication and the type of social, later will be
discussed about the classroom verbal interaction, teacher talk and second language
acquisition (SLA).
According to Hai & Bee (2006) there are at least four roles that must be done
by the teacher in the teaching and learning process particularly in young learner
interactions.
1. The teacher as motivator
The teacher can motivate students, in other words an English teacher has be able to
look for the most efficient ways and must have striven to make the class interesting
14
concern on motivating, stimulating as well as facilitating the learners particularly in
teaching young learner.
2. The teacher as facilitator
The teacher facilitates to students in learning foreign language for example the
teacher can facilitate the fun condition in teaching and learning process.
3. The teacher as Organization
The teacher can select the material for the classroom use, so that students do not think
the process of learning English is difficult and complicated.
4. The teacher as mediator
The Teacher can give stimulant to the student by using media, they can present how
to use a media to support learning activity.
In Indonesia context, English is learnt as a foreign language and young learners
learn English mostly in a language class with no supportive situation. Therefore TT
(teacher talk) is likely to be the major and even the only the one source of the target
language input. Several researchers have discussed the relationship between teacher
talk and language learning. As Nunan (1991) points out: “Teacher talk is crucial
importance, not only for the organization of classroom but also for the processes of
acquisition”. In line with this statement, Krashen (1985) states that teacher talk
determines successful language learning by providing plenty of high quality input for
the language itself. In line with Nunan (1991), he says that the teacher talk is crucial
part, not only for the organization of the classroom but also for the acquisition
process. In terms of acquisition, TT is essential since it is probably the major of
comprehensible a target language input the learner it received or acquired.

15
2.1.3 Types of Classroom Interaction
The type of interaction depends on certain type of the teacher talk and the
student talk appears in classroom. According to Krashen (1992) there are at least
three types of classroom interaction; teacher-dominated, teacher centered, and
student-centered. The definition of each types is provided by Krashen (1992). First,
teacher-dominated is when the teacher takes so much time to talk and students only
have little opportunity to talk. Second, a teacher-centered is when the teacher takes
control of students to be active participate at the classroom interaction. The last type
is student-centered. Different from the first type, in this case the teacher is as the
facilitator and students are more active rather than the teacher in classroom
interaction.
Furthermore, the classroom interaction as a form of the institutional talk is
locally managed but cooperative constructed speech exchange systems (Markee and
Kasper, 2004). According to them, the composed of interaction between teacher and
students and among students, classroom interaction is one of chance where any reality
about classroom phenomena is produced and can be observed at the similar time.
According to Lyster (2007), a learning languages through an interaction has a
pedagogical focus because the interaction provided the teacher and also learners with
couple of strategies for facilitating the comprehension, a formal accuracy, an
academic achievement and the literacy development.
The classroom interaction is a conversation between a teacher and students. It
points about how the teacher promotes students to speak in class and how students
interact among their friends. What happens in a productive class hour is described by
16
Dagarin (2004) lists that there are at least three types of interaction frequently occur
in classroom, as follows.
The first is student-teacher classroom interaction. This interaction will
encourage teacher in way they deliver information and feedback. Asking question is
the most frequent activity that the student do with their teacher. The example is when
they ask about material they do not understand and ask about the certain procedure
such as game and role play.
The second interaction is students-students classroom interaction. According to
Ur (2000), there are more than one patterns of classroom interaction, such as group
work, closed-ended teacher questioning, individual work, collaboration and teacher
talk. In this case, students are given free chance to speak in class since they can talk
each other.
The third interaction is teacher-whole classroom interaction. Tang (2010)
contends that in the most EFL classroom context, the teachers always initiate teacher-
whole class interaction by asking question and students’ responds to the teacher
questions. It other words, during classroom interaction teacher keeps asking questions
orally to the students to stimulate them speak up. Dagarin (2009) argues that there are
three types of teacher whole class interaction such as giving explanation, praises,
information, and instruction. Since it commonly occurs in EFL classroom, the
researcher concludes that teacher whole class is a basic interaction in order to make
student talk.
17
2.1.4 Student Talk and Teacher Talk
In the previous part of this study, the researcher have already explained that
classroom interaction is cooperative effort from teacher and students in form of talk.
The researcher lists several definitions about teacher talk and students talk and how
those aspects influence the interaction.
Teacher talk has attracted attention because its potential effect on learners’
comprehension, which has been hypothesized to be important for L2 acquisition
(Ellis, 1994:583). Teacher as the one who lead the interaction in class, produce
teacher’s talk to input and stimulate students comprehension.
There are several definitions of (teacher talk) TT have been given from
different perspective by some experts. Teacher talk is the language a teacher uses to
allow the various classroom processes to happen, that is the language of organizing
the classroom. This includes the teacher’s explanations, responses to questions,
instructions, praises and correction. Ellis (1985) formulates his own view about
teacher talk: “Teacher talk is a special language that teacher use when addressing
L2 learners in classroom”. It means that teacher addresses classroom language
learners differently from the way they address classroom that they address classroom
learners. Teacher talk is also defined as the kind of modification in teachers’ speech
that can lead to a special type of discourse (Richard and Lockhart, 1996). Richard and
Lockhart explain that when teacher use teacher talk, they are trying to make
themselves as easy as possible to understand and effective teacher talk may provide
crucial support to facilitate both language comprehension and learner production.

18
Teacher talk is defined as the kind of modifications in teacher’s speech that can
lead to a certain type of discourse (Ellis, 2008). Moreover, Nunan (1991) states that
teacher talk is crucial importance, not only for organization of the classroom but also
for the process of acquisition. In line with this, Cullen (2002) argues that teacher talk
is used in class when teachers are conducting instruction, cultivating their intellectual
ability and managing classroom activities.
Suherdi (2009) divided student talk into four types: (1) asking questions, (2)
creating talk exchange, (3) repeating and answering teacher’s or peer’s question.
Meanwhile, according, to Moore (2008), creating student talk has a good advantage.
The student can acquire the knowledge and exchange information through interaction.
For example, a student who is talking with her/his peers can exchange the
information about their experience, hobbies, and many more.
2.1.5 Theory Basis of Adjacency Pairs and Teacher-student interaction
Adjacency pairs in conversation exchange during classroom interaction
between teacher-learners and learner-learner. Speech acts are clearly related to what
conversation analysis is called adjacency pairs or it can be said as utterances that
usually occur together (Cook, 1989). In other words, the production of a speech such
as an offer will normally be accompanied by a response, the response may be
preferred one.
Based on the theories how young children acquire and develop their foreign
language through interaction. Theories focus on second language acquisition (SLA)

19
such as Input Hypothesis, Output Hypothesis and Interaction Hypothesis. The
specific explanations will be listed below.
2.1.5.1 Comprehensible Input Hypothesis
Input plays a critical role in language learning. There is no learning without
input. The language used by the teacher affects the language produced by the
learners, in the interaction generate, and the kind of learning takes places. The
problem is what type and how much of input is appropriate and effective for
language learners in the classroom. Input is defined as language as language which a
learner hears or receives and from which her or she can learn (Ellis, 2008). How
long has the child been learning the language? The amount of language to which the
students has already knew about the language.
Figure 2.1 Input and Attributes in L2 Acquisitions (Adapted from Brown 2007)
Krashen’s Input Hypothesis proposes that comprehensible input is essential for
the learner to acquire a language (Krashen, 1982: 22). Krashen further maintains that
learner will begin to produce the language naturally when they have enough exposure
20
to comprehensible input. According to the input hypothesis explained by Krashen, the
input must be comprehensible in that it is near the learner’s current level of
development, called I, and the level that learner will get to next must slightly beyond
the level at which he or she has already acquired, called i+1(Krashen, 1982). This
argument is in line with Miles (2004) that teacher should use target language in
delivering the lesson.
In Krashen’s view, acquisition takes place of a learner’s access to
comprehensible input. He comments that the input, which is totally incomprehensible
to learners, is not likely to cause learning to take place. Teacher talk actually serves
as the main source of input of language exposure in classroom learning. According to
Krashen (1982), the basic function of language teaching is to deliver compressible
input for those who cannot get it from outside the classroom and for the foreign
language students who do not have input sources outside the class. It can be argued
that the teacher talk, a comprehensible input refers to the utterance that learners
understand on the basis of context which they are used to, as well as the language
which they have learned.
2.1.5.2 Comprehensible Output Hypothesis
Ellis (2008) argues that comprehensible output also plays a part in L2 the
acquisition. The English learners should not only increase the information input but
also increase the efficiency output of language skills. They have learned such as
speaking and writing. According to Swain (1985), her output hypothesis emphasizes
the role of outcome in SLA. She argued that comprehensible input is not a sufficient
condition for SLA, it is only when the input becomes intake that SLA takes place.
21
Learners can improve their language level through “forcing” them to produce
output in target language. In the term of to say or write things or through using the
target language in meaningful ways. Swain (1985) particularly emphasize that it is
only when learners are pushed to use the target language. In other words, it is only
when learners think it is necessary to improve and develop the target language level,
language output can contribute to language acquisition. Therefore, teacher talk is
playing very crucial role during the process of language learning and should manage
to push the students to produce the target language. Through giving students more
opportunities and much more time to the student to practice beside they offer
suitable input.
2.1.5.3 Interaction Hypothesis
The interaction therefore is an important concept of English language learning
process both teacher and students. Long (1996) argues that interaction facilitates
acquisitions because of the conversation and linguistic modifications that occur in
such discourse and that provide learners with the input they need. In other words,
through interaction, learners have more opportunities to understand and practice the
target language comprehensibly. Moreover, Allwright and Bailey (1991) state that
through interaction, the plan produces outcomes (input, practice opportunities and
receptivity). The teacher has to plan the syllabus, method and atmosphere before
they do their teaching in class instead of providing opportunities for learners to
practice the target language. It also creates a ‘state of receptivity’ defined as ‘an
active opens’ means a willingness to encounter the language and the culture. As the
22
result, the essential of classroom interaction has important role in teaching learning
process.
Interaction support the student comprehension by assisting learner L2
production (Long, 1996). Long (1993), argue that much second language interaction
occur through conversation. Long agrees with Krashen that comprehensible input is
crucial for language acquisition. According to him, teachers are able to modify the
interaction so the learners have more opportunities to practice the target language. In
this way teacher can easy check student’s understanding through their ability to
speak target language with other speaker.
Van Lier (1988) points out: if the keys to learning are exposure to input and
meaningful interaction with learner. It is a must to find out what input and
interaction of classroom can provide. He also suggests that interaction is essential for
language learning which occurs in and trough participation in speech events, that is,
talking to others, or making conversation (Van Lier. 1988)
The following diagram, Van Lier suggests that interaction mediates between
input and intake. Most important and central is the interaction with others in
meaningful activities, but as a complement, and partial replacement, the learner’s
cognitive device may also interact directly with the available input.
2.1.6 IRF (Initiation—Response-Feedback)
Developing a classroom interaction where students feel comfortable to initiate
their talk, rather than simple response to the teacher. Initiation-response-feedback
(IRF) patterns is probably the most suitable form that teacher can apply. A common
23
practice in classroom discourse in IRF sequence (teacher initiation-student response-
teacher feedback; Sinclair & Coulthard, 1975; Van Lier (2002) educators who have
interest in ‘democratizing’ classroom talk could well their investigations with
strategies for re-organizing any given classroom’s turn taking structures.
Furthermore, Lee (2007) says that the ‘initiation’ turns of IRFs carry out different
kinds of actions, and the third turn from the teacher may launch a range of teaching
activities.
According to Hale (2011), the IRF pattern is safe and comforting because in
many what is expected in classroom interaction by both teacher and students. It can
therefore be distressed for them to attempt to move beyond the three-part sequence.
In this case, to create more self-directed communicative interaction. Waring (2009)
says that the teacher tends to ask questions they typically already knows the answer.
2.1.6.1 The Interaction Pattern
The IRF exchange in language teaching process is referred as turn-taking of
teacher-student-teacher in classroom. It is mentioned as (IRE), first (I) ‘Initiation’
phase the teacher usually ask questions, to which the student responds (R) and the
end of phase is (F/E) or ‘feedback/evaluation’ (Van Lier, 2002). In this sequence, the
teacher are better to give more referential questions rather than display question to be
viewed as more pedagogically interaction (Vygotsky 1978 cited in Van Lier 2002).
In term of interaction pattern, teachers are able to used “zone of proximal
development”. Vygotsky also provides the definition of ZPD, the zone of proximal
developments is the gap between what a learner has already mastered (the actual level
of development) and what they can achieve when provided with educational support
24
(potential development). In other word, Vygotsky suggests that instead of testing
what a student knows to make sure her understanding. It is much better to provide
someone who has mastered the concept. To guide them to solve the problems with
the students’ ability in solving the problems, furthermore, ZPD is focused on the
relation between instruction and development. Where teacher as the one who gives
the instruction to the students.
2.1.6.1.1 Questions
Question is commonly classified into two main categories. First, display
(closed) questions, in which teachers have already know the answer. The purpose of
this type of questions is to check the students’ understanding. Second, referential
(open) questions, the teachers want to know about students’ opinions toward certain
topics. Nunan (1998) says that referential questions should be used more often than
display questions if it refers to genuine communication in the language classroom.
This stance implies that display questions are not suitable with the purpose of
communicative competence. According to Brown (2007), he found that referential
questions obtained responses of higher quality as well as increased complexity. It
emphasizes on elicit language from learners in form of vocabulary, pronunciation and
language function to support their own opinion.
2.1.6.1.2 Feedback
In this part, the researcher focuses on feedback from the teachers. According to
Richards and Schmitt (2002), feedback is given while someone is speaking and
includes ‘comments such as ……. “Yeah. You right” and “really? Are you sure about
that?”
25
Helpful interactional which supplies corrective feedback letting learners know
their utterance are problematic (Mackey, 2006). Furthermore, Havranek (2002) seems
to agree with Mackey that corrective feedback is most likely to be successful if the
leaners are able to provide the correct form when they are alerted to the error.
In this research, besides applying IRF theory to discover the interaction pattern.
In the next part, it provides an explanation and description about Flanders’ interaction
analysis. Later it will be used to collect the data.
2.1.7 Flanders’s Interaction Analysis Category (FIACS) Technique
Flanders’ interaction analysis is developed by Flander (1970 cited in Melaysias
2013) that is coding categories of interaction analysis to know the quantity of verbal
interaction in the classroom. This technique is one of important techniques to observe
classroom interaction systematically. Flanders (1970) noted the famous “two-thirds”
rule: two-thirds of classroom time consist of talk, and two-thirds of that talk is teacher
talk.
Tichapondwa (2008) argues that Flanders’ interaction Analysis System is for
identifying, classifying, and observing classroom verbal interaction. It means that
Flanders’ interaction Analysis help the researcher to identify classroom interaction
during teaching and learning process in classifying the interaction into the teacher
talk, student talk and silence. Below is table of classroom interaction pattern by
Flander (1970 cited in Hai and Bee 2006)
\
26
Table 2.2: Flander’s Interaction Analysis Categories
No. Flander’s Interaction Analysis Categories (FIAC)
Teacher Talk
A. Indirect Talk
1. Accept Feelings
 In this category, teacher accepts the feeling of the students.

 He feels himself that the students should not be punished for exhibiting
his feelings.
 Feelings may be positive or negative
2. Praise or Encouragement
 Teacher praises or encourages student action or behavior.

 When a student gives answer to the question asked by the teacher, the
teacher gives positives reinforcement by saying word like ‘good’, ‘very
good’, ‘better’, ‘correct’, excellent’, ‘carry on’.
3. Accepts or Uses ideas of Students
 If a student passes on some suggestion, then the teacher may repeat in

nutshell in his own style or words.
 The teacher can say ‘I understand what you mean’. Or the teacher
clarifies builds or develops ideas or suggestion given by a student.
4. Asking Questions
 Asking question about content or procedures, based on the teacher ideas

and expecting an answer from the students.
 Sometimes, teacher asks the question but he carries on his lecture
without receiving any answer.
B Direct Talk
5 Lecturing/Lecture
 Giving facts or opinion about content or procedure expression of his

own ideas, giving his own explanation, citing an authority other than
students, or asking rhetorical questions.
6 Giving Direction
 The teacher gives directions, commands or orders or initiation with

which a students is expected to comply with:
27
 Open your books

 Stand up on the benches
 Solve 4th sun of exercise
7 Criticizing or Justifying Authority
 When the teachers asks the students not to interrupt with foolish
questions, then this behavior is included in this category.
 Teachers ask ‘what’ and ‘why’ to the students also come under this
category.
 Stating why the teacher is doing what he is doing
Student Talk
8 Student Talk Response
 It included the students talk in responses to teacher’s talk

 Teacher asks question, student gives answer to the question.
9 Student Talk Initiation
 Talk by students talk in response to teacher’s talk.
Expressing own ideas; initiating a new topic; freedom to develop

opinion and line of though like asking thoughtful questions; going
beyond the existing structure.
10 Silence or Pause or Confusion
 Pauses, short periods of silence and period of confusion in which

communication cannot be understood by the observer.
Here is Flander’s interaction Matrix to identify the teachers’ and student’s

characteristic.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1
2 TEACHER SUPPORTS STUDENT
3
4 CONTENT CROSS
5
6 TEACHER PARTICI
7 CONTROL PATION
8
9
10
Figure 2.2 . Matrix of Flanders Interaction
28
The matrix analysis shows types the interaction characteristics. The types of
interaction characteristics are presented as follows.
1. Content Cross
A heavy concentration in a column 4 and 5 and row 4 and 5 indicates teacher
dependence on questions and lectures.
2. Teacher Control
A concentration on column and row 6 and 7 indicates extensive commands and
reprimands by the teacher.
3. Teacher Support
A heavy concentration of score in column and row 1, 2, and 3 inicates that the teacher
is reinforcing and encouraging students’ participation.
4. Student Participation
A concentration of score in column 8 and 9 reflects studen responses to the teacher’s
behaviour.
2.1.8. Ananda Mentari Kindergarten Yogyakarta
2.1.8.1 School Profile
Ananda Mentari Kindergarten School is the school which applies English as
medium language instruction in teaching learning system. The school use
International-based education systems since 2011. The school believes that “A
CHILD IS A DISCOVERER”. There are at least three missions that they want to
achieve. First, it is to promote respect to all creatures in young children by teaching
peace, cooperation, and justice. Second, it is to train children to be independent,
creative, critical and able to speak up their minds and to love learning process. Third,
it is to provide a space for children to use English in daily programs in order to
prepare them for successful international communication in the future. The program
29
in this school is full English curriculum that has been already planned to meet the
need of living as a global citizen in the 21th century.
2.1.8.2 Teaching and Learning Process
The students enjoy the activities during learning process in classroom. Without
being noisy they sit down nicely in the classroom while teacher shows the slide the
process of create germ stone. The students are active and noisier in the term of give
their opinion and respond to the teacher. The teacher also seems happy to listen to all
student’s contribution. The students are much more confident and outspoken. After
the lecturing, teacher ask them to make their own germ stone using stone and water
paint. They look happy to do the activities. They practice the language in real
situation context with friends and teacher. They experience the language in use by
communicating in their own words. In case, the teacher has two different rules. First,
teacher is as the role model to give correct example to the students. Second, the
teacher also acts as good friend to share. Since, the goal is that students have to
communicate naturally in English.
2.2 Related Studies
In this part researcher review some related studies in the same filed concerning
teacher talk. It investigated in a variety of subject learned, or in the methodology
used.
Nurmacitah (2010) conducted research on examining classroom language
learning experiences and evaluation on teacher talk in immersion senior high school
classroom. The result that is content cross pattern interaction become the most
dominant pattern. The interaction is dominated by teacher in explaining and giving

30
direction to the students. The suggestions are 1) shifting the teacher-centered
classroom into student-centered classroom; 2) Focusing on the quality of teacher talk;
3) improving questioning technique, using proper feedback technique.
Suherdi (2009) conducted study on kindergarten teacher talk to investigate the
characteristic of the teacher talk in the kindergarten classroom. The result of analysis
revealed that teachers used speech modifications: repetitions, recasting and
exaggerated. In term of language used, teacher was more dominantly used Indonesian
than English. Teacher talk contains high frequency of repetition to avoid
mispronunciation made by the students, to help the student memorize vocabulary and
active during classroom interaction.
Maylisias Wan (2013) she is conducting a research to describe and interpreted
the function of teacher talk in Elementary school English class. This research used
Flanders’s Interaction Analysis Categories. The result shows that the language used
by teacher were classified into two categories namely, indirect and direct influence.
The researcher suggests for the teacher to use more target language rather than L1 in
classroom interaction. By doing this, it is expected teacher can guide the student to
get more exposure of the target language input.
2.3 Theoretical Framework
The input in form of teacher talk (TT) plays as a critical role in language
learning because they still have less prior knowledge of the target language. As
Krashen (2004) says that learners will begin to produce the language naturally when
they have enough exposures to comprehend input. Teacher talk in the classroom
31
becomes an essential part in language learning. It helps the learners to comprehend
and acquire the target language (English).
Through interactions, the students are able to acquire their communication in
the target language. They are required to be active participate in the classroom
discussion. When teacher’s talk and student’s talk are exchange continually,
interaction occurred (Richards and Lockhart, 1996). It means, communication in form
interaction is influenced by teacher and student talk. Later, the interaction will create
certain patterns that promote the quality of teacher’s talk and increase the number of
student’s talk.
The teacher will use various type of teacher talk (TT) during interaction in
young learner English classroom. In the researcher’s assumptions, at least
questioning, giving information, giving instruction, feedback, lecturing and talk to
manage the class such as justifying authority and critique student’s behavior.
The framework established in this research is constructed on the assumption
that, the various type of talk between teacher and student. Those will provide the
different type of classroom interaction pattern to stimulate comprehensible input and
learning outcome (language production) after that generate an active and meaningful
learning and process.
In table 2.2 is talk about the concept of research plotting. In this way, the
researcher gives clear description of how this research would be completed. In first
column (a) the research variable are displayed, (b) conceptual definition on each
variable, (c) category of talk, (d) sub-category, (e) research action and (e) the analysis
step. The purpose of those table is to provide relation on each research variable that
32
later used in description and discussion chapter. The concept of research table was
developed from Hartanto (2010) with some additional modification from the
researcher. The dominant patterns of classroom interaction in four meetings observed
were identified using the concept of research plotting.
What? Classroom Interaction

How?
Interaction Types
Teachers’ Talk Students’ Talk
(Characteristic)
1. Accepts Feeling 1. Students’

Flanders’s Interaction
Analysis (FIA) 2. Encouragement Response
3. Use Students’ Ideas 2. Student
4. Asking Question Adjace Initiation
ncy
Observation Flanders’s 5. Lecturing
Pairs 3. Silence or
Protocol Matrix 6. Giving direction Confusion
7. Criticizing
1. Content Cross
2. Teacher Control
Valuable Input Correct &
3. Teacher Support
4. Student Participant & Develop Meaningful
Interaction production
1. Student-Teacher 1. Input Theory

2. Student-Student Interaction 2. Output Hypothesis
3. Teacher-whole class 3. Interaction Hypothesis
Figure 2.3 Conceptual Framework

33
Table 2.3. Research Concept Plotting
Concept Conceptual Category Sub Research Action Analysis

Definition Category
A B C D E
Classroom A kind of Teacher Accepts Observation with In opening and
interaction communication Talk Feeling full of description closing
(Talk) between and interview learning
process
teacher-
Encourageme Observation with The way
students in full of description teacher support
nt
classroom and interview students in
using target producing
language language
(English) Asking Observation with Teacher asks
Question full of description questions to
and interview the students
Lecturing Observation with Teacher
full of description delivers the
and interview material
Giving Observation with Teacher asks
direction full of description student to do
and interview something
Criticizing Observation with Criticize
full of description students’
and interview behavior in
class
Student Student talk- Observation with When student
response deep respond to the
Talk
interpretation and teacher’s talk.
interview.
Student talk- Observation with When students
initiation deep
produce talk
interpretation and
interview. by their own
though.
Silence or Observation with The moment
confusion deep
when students
interpretation and
interview. are silence or
confuse.
34
Interaction A certain Content Questioning Observation and Questioning

Pattern combination of Cross and Lecturing full interpretation and Lecturing
classroom talk
that create Teacher Criticizing or Observation and Criticizing or
different Control justifying and full interpretation justifying and
characteristic Giving
of classroom Giving
direction
interaction direction
Teacher Accepting Observation and Accepting
Support feeling, full interpretation
feeling,
encourageme
encouragement
nt and using
students’ idea and using
students’ idea
Student Student talk- Observation and Student talk-
Participant response and full interpretation response and
Student talk- Student talk-
initiation
initiation
Classroom Doing research Descriptive Participants’ Description and Participant
research in school description deep interview describe their
setting about action in class.
teaching and Researcher’s Description and Researcher
description deep interview describe based
learning lead on the
by teacher and observation.
students in Interpretive Participants’ Description and Participant
order to interpretation deep interview give their own
improve the understanding,
quality of opinion and
expectation.
teaching.
Researcher’s Description and Researcher
interpretation deep interview interpret the
result of
interview and
relate them
with theories.
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
This chapter describes in detail about the methodology applied in conducting
this research. The research procedures include research method, nature of data, data
sources, research instruments, data collection technique, data analysis and
trustworthiness. In data sources, research participants and research are presented.
3.1. Research Design
The approach in this research was qualitative that supported by simple statistic
calculation (percentages) in order to support the finding. Classroom-research design
was applied in this study. As Nunan and Bailey (2009) “fundamentally classroom
research involves doing research in school setting about teaching and learning”.
This study used Flanders Interaction Analysis System (FIAS), proposed by
Flander in 1970 cited in Hai & Bee 2007. Which is resulted in much better
understanding of classroom interaction aims and events. In this study was focused on
interaction patterns and how did the interaction happen.
The researcher was not to negotiate in the research setting and did not try to
control naturally occurring events, because the study tended to find out the
predominant interaction patterns and describe how the interactions happened. It went
in deeper analysis through interviewing the classroom teacher about her reason to
deliver certain talk that create certain interaction patterns. Furthermore, school
35
36
principle was also interviewed to investigate the reason, opinion, understanding and
certain expectation toward young learner classroom interaction.
3.2. Research Procedure
The procedure of this research would be as the follow adopted from Nurcita
(2010)
1. The researcher came to the class and sat at the backside
2. The researcher prepared audio visual recording and guidance and rules of
Flander interaction analysis.
3. The researcher put code on the particular type of teachers and student talk in
order to get expected data.
4. The researcher put the plotting of the coded data into matrix of Flander
interaction analysis.
5. The researcher calculated the teacher’s and student’s talk during teaching and
learning process by Flander’s formulas.
6. The researcher identified students’ and teacher’s characteristic by referring to
Flander’s interaction matrix to identify the teachers’ and students’
characteristic.
37
3.3. Nature of Data
In this study, researcher worked with spoken (verbal behavior) language
delivered by the teacher and young learners. The data were recorded from teaching
learning activities in Ananda Mentari Jogjakarta. Those utterances were transcribed
into transcription of conversations. The data were collected from the observations
during the process of teaching-learning English. The form of data were audio-visual
recording concerning teacher talk taken during classroom observation. In this study,
the researcher analyzed the teacher based on the spoken language found in their
interactions of Flander’s Interaction Analysis Categories (FIAC) that the researcher
adapted from Flander (1970 cited in Hai and Bee 2007).

38
The methodology of this research used one of the observation scheme for the
objective and the quantitative data, video-tape recording of interactions for qualitative
data. The audio-tape recording of the interview with the classroom teacher and the
school principal. The list of interview questions are based on the observation result
that have already done by the researcher. The researcher also arranged the questions
based on Hartanto (2010) and Wan (2015). Their study concerned about teacher’s
perception toward teacher talk in foreign language classroom.
3.4. Data Sources
The data in this research were taken from the video-recording result of the real
interaction, between the teacher and students’ interaction during class. It was
transcribed into transcriptions. The concern of this study was to discover the pattern
of classroom interaction and how did interaction happen.
3.4.1 Research Participants
The participant was a 25 old female kindergarten school teacher whose pseudo
name in this study was Mrs. Nina. She is from non-English education department
background. She graduated from Islamic University in sociology major. She has
experienced in teaching English at the kindergarten school over five years. The
researcher chose her as teacher participant because of her willingness to be observed
as well as interviewed. Furthermore, the school principal recommended Mrs. Nina to
be observed for collecting data proses. To validate and confirm the narrative data
from the class observation, the researcher had done the interview with the teacher to
get cross check the result and identify un-observable utterance.

39
In addition, the school principal was also involved as the participant of this
research. She was the founder of Ananda Mentari Kindergarten School Yogyakarta.
She had really good understanding of teaching young learner in foreign language. She
also found the valuable concept of school which take care, loved and educated
children when their mothers were going to work. She graduated from psychology
major and had a lot of experiences in teaching young learner, before she established
the school. She was very fluent in speaking English. Finally, she was really generous
and open-minded person.
3.4.2 Research Setting
This study was conducted in Ananda Mentari Kindergarten School Jogjakarta.
This is one of the private Playgroup and Kindergarten school located at Jln.
Anggajaya I/285 Condongcatur, Jogjakarta. Ananda Mentari has a unique program
that offers a mix of regular full day for children age 12 months to 6 years old. The
study was started in the second semester of 2015/2016 academic year. It was done in
January-March 2016.
This school consisted of ‘grade’ Baby class, Toddler class, Nursery class,
Kindergarten one and Kindergarten two. In this study, the researcher concerned in
Kindergarten two, there were 12 students in class and there were two teachers to
handle the class. The duration for the class started from 8 am -11.30 am. In this
school, English was used as classroom language in daily teaching learning process.
There were three reasons for the researcher to conduct this research in this
school. The first one was because this school is located near from where researcher
lives. The second reason was in term of language that the school used in their
40
teaching learning is 100% English. Third reason was based on the first pre-
observation that have done in 15th November 2015, the researcher found that the
students were actively speaking in English in order to have some discussion both with
teacher and their friend. Furthermore, Miss Pipin one of lecture in English Studies
Program Sanata Dharma University suggested the researcher to conduct this research
there.
The researcher had no problems when conducted this study in this school.
Hopefully, the research result contributed to the development of English teaching and
learning quality to this school in the future. Particularly, in term of young learner
classroom interaction in foreign language. Finally, the research setting could be
considered as having credible data, provided an effective interaction and an easy
access for collecting data.
3.5. Research Instruments
This study apply of two instruments in collecting the data. They were a video-
camcorder and observation protocol. Video was used to take the class observation
data while the interview guideline was used in interviewing the participants about the
language used in the classroom. Since this study focused on the teacher talk therefore
researcher focused the observation on how the teacher delivered their verbal/spoken
language in teaching-learning process.
3.5.1 Observation Protocol
During the observation, the researcher got the reliable data, since the researcher
would put the code on the certain teacher talk during the interaction occurred in the
classroom. Before the researcher filled the observation protocol sheet. The researcher
41
had to understand observation protocol guidance that included list of Flander’s
Interaction Analysis Categories (FIAC) that the researcher adapted from Flander
(1970 cited in Hai and Bee 2006). The observation protocol guidance is provided in
chapter 2.
There were some rules for deciding which one the best category should be put
out the code consistency. Flander (1970 cited in Sign et al.2008) provided rules to
help researcher in identifying the talk.
Rule 1 When it is not certain in which of two categories a statement belongs,

choose category that is numerically farthest from category 5
Rule 2 The observer should not involve their personal point of view. If a
teacher attempts to be clever, student see teachers’ statement as critics
of students; the observer sues category 7.
Rule 3 If more than one category active in a span of 3 second, and then all
the categories should be recorded
Rule 4 If the same period of silence exceeds 3 seconds. It should be recorded
the category No.10
Rule 5 When teacher calls a child by name, the observer is supposed to
record a 4th category.
Table 3.1: Five rules for deciding which category should be put code consistency.
Below was the observation protocol that was for putting out the code. This would
help the researcher to decide particular type of talk during observations time. The
recorded utterances were in form of conversation between teacher-students, student-
teacher and student-student

42
Table 3.2: Matrix of Flander Interaction Analysis. (1970 cited in Hai and Bee 2007).
Day/Date : Meeting :
Teacher’s Name : Material :
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Accepts feelings
Praise or
Indirect encouragement
talk
Accepts or uses
ideas of students
Asking questions
Lecturing/lecture
Direct Giving direction

talk
Criticizing or
justifying authority
Student talk
response
Student
response Student talk
initiation
Silence or pause or
confusion
TOTAL
43
3.5.2 Recording Instrument
The researcher used audio-visual recording to make the data accurate and valid.
The recording helped the researcher to aware certain types of teacher talk and student
talk during the learning and teaching process in classroom.
3.6. Data Collection
The data was collected by observing class meetings by using two methods in
collecting the data including observation protocol and recording (audio-visual
recording). Through the observation, the researcher could observe what the teacher
and student did and talked in classroom. Creswell (2007) suggested that data
collection steps should include setting of the study, collecting information through
unstructured (semi-structured) observation and interviews and visual material, as well
as establishing the protocol for gathering information.
3.6.1 Observation protocol
The researcher put out code the particular teacher and student talk that was on
the Flander’s Interaction Analysis Category (FIAC). Observation protocol sheet
during teaching and learning process after the researcher did plotting the coded data
firstly. The researcher put out code at the end of each three seconds interval in order
to get expected data. Here was an illustration of how to put a code of classroom
verbal interaction based on the observation protocol and the rules of Flanders’s code
system. The illustration could be seen as the follows.

44
Table 3.3. An illustration of how to put a code of classroom verbal interaction.

Adopted from Sign et at 2008
Classroom verbal Recorded Explanation

interaction as
Teacher: Have you ever 4 The teacher ask the students about the
gone by the plane? content of the topic. He expects an
answer from the student. It is as teacher
direct talk recorded as 4.
Student: The students are 10 The students are in short period of silence
silence because they do not know what they have
to do. It is as silence or pause of
confusion recorded as 10.
Teacher: Why are you 7 The teacher ask “why” to criticize why
confused when I said open the student silence. It is a teacher direct
page 47? talk that is criticizing by asking “why”
recorded as 7.
The teacher accepts the 1 The teacher accepts the students feeling
students’ feeling since where she feels that the students should
they do not understand. not ne punishes. It is as teacher indirect
talk recorded as 1.
Students: The students 8 The student’s response to the teacher’s
give their opinion about talk. It is as students talk response
the topic. recorded as 8.
3.6.2. Recording
The researcher recorded the whole part if teaching and learning process in order
to get the teacher and student talk during the process. In recording, the researcher put
code on the particular the teacher and student talk based on the Flander’s Interaction
Analysis Categories (FIAC) observation protocol and rules.
Furthermore, in recording the researcher recorded teacher’s talk, student’s talk
and silence based on the observation protocol guidance adapted from Flander (1970
cited in Hai and Bee 2007) as the follow:

45
First, teacher’s talk consisted of direct and indirect talk. The indirect talk
includes teacher accepts the student feeling and ideas; praises or encourage student
action or behavior, repeat, clarifies, builds or develop ideas or suggestion given by a
student, asks questions about content or procedures based on the teacher ideas, gives
his own explanation; gives directions, commands and asks the students not to
interrupt with questions.
Second, student talk consisted of direct talk that included the student talk in
responding to the teacher talk; and expressing their own ideas; initiating a new topic;
freedom to develop opinions and a line of through like asking thoughtful questions.
Third, silence included pauses, short periods of silence and period of confusion
in which communication cannot be understand by the observer.
3.6.3. Interview
In this research the purpose of interviewing teacher was to find out the teacher
opinion, reason about their teaching particularly their talk, teaching performance and
student’s talk during the interaction. The researcher created the interview lists based
on the observation result.
3.7. Data Analysis
In order to answer the research question, (1) what are the predominant patterns
found in young learners classroom interaction? (2) How did the interaction happen?
The researcher done several steps on analyzing data.
The data were analyzed on the transcription of four direct observations. The
data analysis in this study were in form of conversation transcription. The video-
taped lesson interview was transcribed were checked by the teacher. To avoid
46
misspelled words or any talks which did not make sense. The clear step and guideline
was provided by Creswell (2003) to help researcher analyze and display data in the
result and discussion chapter.
Table 3.4 Guidelines for data analysis

STEP ACTIVITY
Step 1 Organizing the data The interview are transcribed, filed notes
are typed and arranged into different
categories.
Step 2 Reading the data Making general sense of the data and
reflecting on its overall context.
Step 3 Coding process Organizing the data and labeling the
categories with terms from the term of
both teacher and student talk.
Step 4 Generate description Using the coding process to generate
description about participant, setting and
events.
Step 5 Narrating the description and Chronologically convey findings of the
themes analysis by mentioning the events,
detailed discussion of several context,
specific illustration figures and multiple
opinion from different participant
(teacher and school principle)
Step 6 Interpreting the data The researcher’s personal interpretation
of the participant’s understanding or
expectation from a finding with concepts
or theories from related literature.
47
The data analysis was conducted by the researcher after collecting the data.
This study used Flander’s formulates to get the expected data. It used to count the
percentage in order to compare teacher talk and student talk? Finally, to gather
quantitative data that supporting the finding by providing simple statistic data.
3.7.1 Teachers’ and Students’ Ratio
After the researcher got data from observation protocol analysis, the researcher
calculated how much the teacher talk frequency in classroom interaction by using
Flander’s formulates (1970) cited in Sign et al 2008 and Nugroho 2009). The
researcher used it to find out the percentage of teacher and student talk during
classroom interaction. Here are the formulas.
1. Teacher Talk Ratio/ Percentage of Teacher Talk (TT)
The tallies of first seven categories are added and divided by the total score of the
matrices (N).
2. Indirect Teacher Talk Ratio (ITT)
- It indicated teacher actions in encouraging and supporting students’ participations.
- Its percentage could be calculated by adding score of the first four categories and
dividing by the total tallies of the matrix (N)
3. Direct Teacher Talk Ratio (DTT)
- It indicated the teacher actions restricting student participation.

48
- In this ratio the score of 5th, 6th and 7th categories were added and divided by “N” to
calculate the percentage.
4. Students’ Talk Ratio/ Percentage of Students Talk (PT)
- It indicated verbal activities of students in response to the teacher
- In this ratio, the score of 8th and 9th categories are added and divided by “N” to
calculate the percentage.
5. Silence or Confusion Ratio (SC)
6. Indirect and Direct Ratio (I/D)
3.7.2 Analyzing the matrix
The next step was to complete matrix, some areas hadhigh score and the other
low. A heavier concentration of socre in a certain area gave information about who is
talking and what type of talking is taking place.
3.7.3 Analyzing the additional data
The additional data conduted from teacher and the school principal. Interview
with the classroom teacher was to get deeper information about her teaching
49
perfomance in class. The second interview had done with the school principle to seek
information on her personal understanding, expectatoin, opinion and school
regulation related to teaching learning process in Ananda Mentari Kindergarten
School, Yogjakarta.
3.8. Trustworthiness
This qualitative research adopted one of the triangulation type proposed by
Denzim, that is, data sources triangulation. Data sources could be very base on the
times the data were collected, the place, or setting and from whom the data were
obtained (Denzim, 1970). There were two participants in this research. The data used
in this study obtained from two different sources and two different data collections
techniques (observation and interview).
The process of data confirmation began from collecting the data from audio-
visual recording by doing class observations. The result of class observation and data
analysis would be clarified with the teacher opinion and understanding. Therefore, the
purpose of interviewing the participants was to discover their reason, opinion,
understanding, and expectations toward young learner classroom interaction. The
questions would be constructed later after the class observation data analysis. The
reason is the researcher ensured that the trustworthiness was preserved.
3.8.1 Answering of the Research Questions
This section present the steps of processing and analyzing the data to describe
how the data were collected and analyzed. This process was a fundamental section of
this study.
50
3.8.1.1 Conducting Classroom Observation
In this qualitative research, class observation used as a technique to collect data
about teacher talk. To get the audio-visual data, the researcher had to observe the
process of teaching and learning in the classroom. Firstly, the researcher met the
school’s principal to get a permission and informed her than the researcher would like
to do some classroom observation at the school. Second, the researcher met with
classroom teacher to arrange the observation schedule. Third, the researcher did the
observations and interview session with the classroom teacher and the school
principal.
In this study, the researcher transcribed the audio manually to get the clear
transcription of the teacher language. So the researcher described the interaction in
term of verbal language between teacher and students. Table 3.5 was the sample of
the audio transcript getting from class observation.
After the class, a detailed transcription of the recording was worked out and
then we got a comprehensive written record of the lessons to be analyzed statistically.
After the data were transcribed, the teacher talk was located based on the each
categories and analyzed with regard to the two research questions which the study
investigated.
51
Table 3.5: Observation Data Transcription
Date : Topic:
Extr Conversation Context of situation Teache Coding Student Talk
act r Talk
001 T: “Good morning friend, Teacher greets student Accept (Acpt.) Response
(2) while starting the teaching ing
How are you today?” activity.
S: “Good morning Miss
Nining, I am fine thank you”
002 T: “Are you ready for Teacher addressing to all Asks (Ask.Quest Response
(2) something, surprised?” students in the classroom questio .)
ns
S: “Wow, we are ready Miss”
003 T: “Did you check the Teacher asks the student Asks (Ask.Quest Initiate
(2)
weather outside, just a about today’s activity questio .)
ns
moment ago. It is rainy or
sunny?”
S: “Sunny, the sun is very
bright”
004 T: “Do you see little rain or Teacher gives the Asks (Ask.Quest Initiate
(2) information about what questio .)
cloudy sky outside?”
will they learn. ns
S: “No, it is sunny already”
Since the process of collecting data from different type of rich data from
different sources. The researcher regulated to collect and use all of the optional type of
data to confirm and support the validity of data analysis and data finding. As stated in
previous part this study gathered data from observation, interviews (teacher and the
school principle and field note (See the table 3.5).

52
Table Qualitative Data Collection Types and Sources of Data

(Adapted from Creswell, 2007)
Table 3.6. Table qualitative data collection types and sources of data
Data Collection Sources Product Purpose

Types
Interviews Research Interview -Elicit participants’
participant transcription, narrative story
interview note, -Anticipate and
audio and audio pursue emergent
file recording. leads and clues
-Form the basis for
interpretation to
build meaning and
understanding
Observations -The research Observation notes - Link, connect and
participant’s and video confirm facts and
behavior, attitude recording file findings
and actions. - Get description of
-Appearances, external behavior
events, occurrences and immediate
and activities in the physical realities of
immediate setting the participants and
(classroom and research setting.
institution) - Achieve
trustworthiness
3.8.1.2. Analyzing of Class Observation Data
There were several stages in analyzing the data in this study: (1) preparing the
data in the form of transcription by transcribe the class observation data. (2)
Categorizing the teacher talk and student talk based on the observation.(3) conducting
coding on the teacher talk and student talk based on the Flander Interaction Analysis
Coding System (FIACS) by from Flander (1970 cited in Hai and Bee 2006). During
53
the process of analyzing data, the researcher needed to managed, sorted out and
ensure for the type and pattern. Later to get clear and valid finding of what exactly
happened in classroom.
After that the researcher analyzed the pattern of interaction into three
categories, namely: teacher direct talk, teacher indirect talk and students’ talk. In
order to analyze the pattern of interaction, the researcher selected teacher and students
talk from the transcripts and put them those categories.
Table 3.7 Verbal Interaction categorization (Flander cited in Hey Bee 2007)
Focusing of Teacher talk and Student Talk
Category Type Talk or Utterance
Content Cross Lecturing T: “The second thing we
Teacher dependence on Teacher gives facts or will use this paper for
questions and lectures opinion about content or wrapping the bottle this
giving her own way. Oh my bottle is small
explanation so I can cut the paper like
this” (4/048)
Questioning T: “Let’s listen to Fiona.
Teacher is asking question What are the material
about content or procedure come out from the volcano
and expecting answer from when it is erupting?”
students (3/015)
Teacher Control Giving Direction T: “After you have finished
Extensive commands and Teacher gives directions, to make sandwich. You
reprimands by the teacher commands or orders which will go outside to grill the
student is expected to bread. And we will have
comply with party” (2/030)
Criticizing or Justifying T:”I think Stefani has to

Teacher asks ‘what ‘and pay attention, you don’t
‘why’ to the students to even finish your space
change students’ behavior shuttle” (4/072)
from unexpected to
acceptable behavior.
54
Teacher Support Accepts feeling T: “Good morning friends.

Teacher’s reinforcing and Teacher accepts the On Monday Miss Martha
encouraging students feelings of the students told you about how to save
the earth” (4./001)
Use student idea T: “So according to
When the students’ ideas Nathan. The rocket need
are accepted by the teacher fire to be launched to the
then teacher may repeat in outer space” (4./011)
her own word.
Praise encouragement T: “Good, we can build
Teacher praises of nice and comfortable tent”
encourages student action (3/031)
or behavior
Student Participation Student Talk Response S: “Gold and silver”
Students’ response to the The student talk in (4/024)
teachers’ behavior response to the teacher’s S: “That is corn shape”
talk (2/045)
Student Talk Initiating S: “I have ever tried the
Talk by students that they marshmallow and the
initiate, expressing own color is colorful I also like
ideas, initiating a new the taste” (2./026)
topic and going beyond the
existing structure.
Silence Pause, short periods of T: “Do you know some
silence and period of sign when volcano will
confusion in which cannot erupt? Do you know?”
be understood by the S: “….” (silence) (4/025)
observer.
3.8.1.3. Ensuring Trustworthiness of research Result
The interview protocol developing unstructured interview. According to Hai &
Bee (2006), unstructured interview was intended to provoke through and further
information from the participants while making necessary confirmation to the
findings gained from the initial. The interview while conveying the understanding,
55
reason, opinion, though, feeling, expectation and experience in term of young learner
classroom interaction.
After the researcher analyzed the classroom observation data, the researcher
tried to ensure the result of class observation of data analysis. The researcher
interviewed the teachers to obtain their opinions on the certain talk they have
distributed and their teaching performance in order to manage the interaction. The
researcher listed the sample of interview questions with classroom teacher and the
school principle. The complete interview result with Ms. Nining can be seen on
appendix 9.
Table 3.8 Sample of Interview Questions with classroom teacher
No List of Questions
1 When you enter the classroom you greet your student by using the expression of
“good morning, friends?” Do you have any reason for using friends rather than
students?
2 You intense to use referential questions to asked your students. Do you have
any purpose with that?
3 How if your student can not answer your questions correctly?
4 What will you do to make them understand, in case your students are considered
as young learners?
5 Students tend to answer the questions shortly when you required them to
produce student talk response ‘answer’. Any reason about that?
6 Students seem prefer to initiate their answer rather than just do yes no question
or short answer. Why is that so?
The following was the sample of interview questions lists with the school
principle. The entire interview data were attached in Appendix 9. The following was
a sample of unstructured of interview of Ms. Detty as principle.

56
Table 3.9 Sample of Interview Questions with school principle
No List of Questions
1 Miss what is your personal opinion about young learner classroom interaction
using English as foreign language?
2 How about your expectation toward students in contributing their talk during
interaction?
3 What is your purpose, to require interaction at school time have to be done in
100% English?
4 Is there any consideration on more focus in oral form instead of written?
5 Do you provide a course about reading and writing skill?
There were at least four stages to ensure the research result based on Wan
(2013). First constructing interview questions, the interview questions were
constructed based on the result of classroom observation data analysis. Second,
conducting the interview, the researcher directed face to face to interview the
participant using voice-recorder. Third conducting interview with the school principle
to know the school concept and certain requirement both from teacher and students in
term of interaction. The final step was analyzing the interview data. Furthermore, the
result of interview was able to help researcher in developing concept and idea in
order to support the accuracy and validity of research analysis.
The following figure showed the working of the data analysis technique and the
triangulation strategy to obtain the trustworthiness of this study adapted from
Creswell (2007). Figure 3.5 above provides the various steps in analyzing the data.
Those steps have applied in this research to conduct trustworthiness and to confirm
57
the finding. The overall steps in analyzing teacher talk and students talk would be
presented detailed in appendix 1 – 3.
Raw Data Collection
Data
Reading &
Recording
Narratives:
(Interview transcription, Description of field notes, etc)
Data
Readin
g
Coding, Categorizing, Reduction & Labelling
Thematic/categorized Data Presentation
Answering ‘why’ questions (Interview,

Observation &Analysis
Data Analysis,
Discussing Themes Interpretation
(Interview, Making Inferences
&
Observation (interview
Triangulation
&Analysis) &observation)
Drawing conclusions
(Interview, Observation
&Analysis)
Figure 3.2. Data Analysis Technique

CHAPTER IV
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
This chapter presents the research result and discussion. The results will be divided
into: (1) data result, (2) discussion, and (3) summary.
4.1 RESULTS
This part provides the general description of young learner classroom
interaction. First, the pattern of interaction found during teaching and learning
activity. Second, the overall description of how the interaction happened. Third, it is
also provide the interview result with the classroom teacher and the school principal.
4.1.1 The General Description of Teaching and Learning Process.
The researcher describes further about the general description of learning
process at Ananda Mentari School. The brief description of teaching learning process,
the participants of the study, and the classroom interaction will be presented first.
One class was handed by two teachers. One teacher was responsible to teach
and to lead the class activities and the other teacher helped the students to finish the
task or the activity. This became a special consideration that the students were young
learners. Most primary-grade children (4-5) are still preoperational. They learn best
with concrete experiences and immediate goals (Kamp, Sue, and Coppell (2002). In
this case, the teacher has already got acquainted with the students. As the result, the
process of interaction could be well managed. In other words, students learnt new
58
59
thing from the teacher. They experienced the real situation by doing the activities in
class.
When the researcher started joining the class at Ananda Mentari Kindergarten,
the researcher noticed that students liked to talk or talk-active. It could be seen during
the observations, which students liked to mention the name objects, defined a
sentence and described about things in their own words. The students needed to know
how to feel and to know about new object in order to understand it well. They learnt
through the oral language or the verbal behaviors which were delivered by the
teacher. For example vocabulary, pronunciation, intonation and many more contents
in form of the teacher’s explanations and directions.
Finally, both of the teacher and students created a classroom situation that
made students feel comfortable to initiate and do interaction using English. The
activities mostly were done in classroom. The teacher was showing pictures, videos,
and objects and demonstrating about certain process related to the topic. The teacher
spent her teaching time on explaining things to the students, talking to them,
questioning and answering student’s several questions.
Norman & Schmidt (2004) cited in Brendel 2014 find out that more effective
teachers organized their teaching in a way which: (1) Reviewed the content to access
learner’s abilities; (2) Overviewed the content with the students, motivating them and
showing why it will be important to them; (3) Presented the content in small simple
steps, asking questions while doing this; (4) Exercised the content to provide learners
time to practice the skills they have already learnt. The researcher found that the
60
interaction in Ananda Mentari Kindergarten School had similar approach to the
theory from Norman & Schmidt about organizing an effective teaching.
The following description gave clear explanation why interactions were well
managed by the teacher. In the preparation of teaching earning process was well
prepared and well organized in the class. The class material was explained in a
compressible ways. The activities were prepared and delivered clearly related to the
topic. The directions were understandable and concise.
Those situation provided enough chance for the students in acquiring all the
learning process. Through those fun learning activities, students brought to
experience the real context of situation. They could learn the new vocabulary and
practice the target language in different topic. During the activities, students had a lot
of opportunities to practice their target language by interacting with their teacher and
also their friends. When students practiced those language inputs, they would be easy
to remember all the contents, vocabulary and pronunciation, since, the students would
remember what they had already done in all class activities.
4.1.2 Interaction Event
The data of this study were generated from taking audio-video visual record of
four meetings of the classroom interaction. Each meeting was observed in 60 minutes
length. The observation were conducted four times in 3 months (January, February
and March) in 2016. The observed verbal behaviors were translated into the described
into descriptive codes. Its printed out is enclosed in appendix 3-6.
The participant of this study was a female kindergarten school teacher who has
been teaching young learner for almost 5 years. The observations were done during
61
she was delivering teaching-learning practices in the classroom in kindergarten B.
The class consisted of 15 students; 9 girls and 6 boys. The researcher took position at
the back as non-participant in the classroom. The researcher was not involved in class
activities in order to get the natural interaction without any distractions from the
researcher.
The observations were focused on the talk occurring during the class activities.
The data acquired were plotted into different matrix namely; talking time-interaction
analysis and interaction analysis. Those were conducting after completing the steps
(1,2,3) suggested by FIACS (Flanders Interaction Analysis Coding System). The
matrixes had different purposed in serving or displaying the data found.
The first matrix focused on the talk and the verbal behavior performed during
the classroom interaction. Furthermore, it was also used to analyze the pattern of
classroom interaction (the content cross, the teacher control, the teacher support, the
students’ participation and additional direct and indirect talk distributed by teacher).
The matrix presented in tables below showed the pattern found during interaction.
The complete one can be seen on the appendix 3-

62
Table 4.1 Pattern (1st Meeting).
FIRST OBSERVATION
F Accept feelings 5
I Praise or 6
Encouragement
R
Accepts or uses
S student’s ideas
T Asking questions 17
R Lecturing/explaini 12
ng
E
Giving direction 10
V
Criticizing or 2
95
E justifying
N authority
Student talk 23
T response
Student talk 16
initiation
Silence 6
Total 5 6 17 12 10 2 23 16 6
Table 4.2 Pattern (2nd Meeting).

SECOND OBSERVATION
S Accept feelings 5
E Praise or 6
Encouragement
C
Accepts or uses 3
O student’s ideas
N Asking questions 20
D Lecturing/explaini 10
ng
E
Giving direction 10
V
Criticizing or 7
120
E justifying
N authority
Student talk 24
T response
Student talk 31
initiation
Silence 4
Total 5 6 3 20 10 10 7 24 31 4
63
Table 4.3 Pattern (3rd Meeting)
THIRD OBSERVATION
T Accept feelings 3
H Praise or 7
Encouragement
I
Accepts or uses 2
R student’s ideas
D Asking questions 20
E Lecturing/explaini 21
ng
V
Giving direction 5
E
Criticizing or 4
145
N justifying
T authority
Student talk 24
response
Student talk 36
initiation
Silence 2
Total 3 7 2 20 21 5 4 24 36 2
Table 4.4 Pattern (4th Meeting)

FOURTH OBSERVATION
Accept feelings 6
F Praise or 15
Encouragement
O
Accepts or uses 4
U student’s ideas
R Asking questions 15
T Lecturing/explaini 14
ng
H
Giving direction 15
E
Criticizing or 4
134
V justifying
E authority
Student talk 33
N response
T Student talk 39
initiation
Silence 4
Total 6 15 4 15 14 15 4 33 39 4
64
The four matrixes are about classroom interaction pattern in first meeting until
fourth meeting. They are indicated that interaction is not dominated by the teacher.
The distribution of each type of talk is also balance with one to another. It can be seen
from the number of the teacher talk (tail 1-7) and the student talk (tail 8-10).
Furthermore, it is found that the number of talks also increases. Based on the
observation, in the first meeting the class activity is not as many as other meetings
since the activity is only class discussion without any simulation about the topic.
Another point is the number of silence (tail 10) has very low frequent. It showed that
students are active in participating classroom discussion.
4.1.2.1 Teacher Talk and Student Talk
Before the researcher shows the percentage result of the teacher’s talk and the
student’s talk, the researcher defines the differences of percentage of the teacher talk
and the percentage of student talk. The definitions are suggested by from Flander
(1970 cited in Hai and Bee 2006).
First, the percentage of teacher talk represented the amount of the total class
time during which the teacher is speaking. To find the percentage of teacher talk, the
total number of column 1-7 is divided by the total number of columns in the matrix.
Second, the percentage of student talk indicated the amount of the total class
time during which a student is speaking. The percentage of student talk is found by
dividing the total number of columns 8 and 9 by the total number of columns in the
matrix. Below is the result of teacher talk proportion in each meeting (1st-4th
meeting). The complete result can be seen in appendix 2.

65
Table 4.5 The Results of Students’ Talk and Teacher’s Talk
No Meeting Teacher Talk Student Talk Silence

Quantity % Quantity % Quantity %
1 First 52 53% 39 41.5% 6 5.5%
2 Second 59 49.5% 55 47% 4 3.5%
3 Third 62 51.5% 60 47% 2 1.5%
4 Fourth 63 54% 72 53.2% 4 2.8%
478
Total 236 49.5% 226 47.2% 16 3.3%
In order to describe the table above, the total number of teacher talk will be
compared with the number of student talk category. The teacher talk and the student
talk will be compared in the four meeting observations. The result shows that the
teacher talk and the student talk is not really different 49.5% and 47.2% for students’
talk. Further a lot information about the observation result in teacher-student
interaction will be presented. The table shows that the total number of talk during
interaction is 478 of utterances. Those utterances will be divided into two main
categories teacher talk and student talk. The proportion of student talk is 226 or 49%.
Those utterances will be classified into 3 parts. The proportion of teacher talk is 236
or 51% the teacher talk will be classified into direct and indirect influence. The result
of teacher talk can be seen in table 4.6 about classroom interaction in 4 different
pattern.
66
Table 4.6 Result Summary of Classroom Interaction Pattern
No Profile First Second Third Fourth Total

Meeting Meeting Meeting Meeting Meeting
1 Content Cross 31.53% 27% 28% 21.6% 26.28%
2 Teacher Control 13.63% 14.16% 12.2% 14% 13.74%
3 Teacher Support 11.57% 13.66% 10.8% 18.4% 12.10%
4 Students’ Participation 43.27% 45.85% 46% 54% 45.47%
To describe the table above, the total number of teachers’ and students; talk will be
categorized into four different patterns (content cross, teacher control, teacher support
and student participation). The percentage of each patterns have been counted using
Flander Interaction Analysis System (FIAS) formulas. After that it will compared with all
observation meeting result to get the accumulation of each pattern. The result shows the
student participation become the most predominant pattern. The proportion of student
participation pattern is high in the whole four meeting is 43.27%, 45.85%, 46% and 54%.
It means that the students are active enough in the classroom interaction. The second
predominant pattern is content cross. The proportion is 31.53%, 27, 28% and 26, 28%. It
spend 26.28% of teaching learning time, it mean teacher spent more her talking time in
lecturing. She was giving facts or opinion about content or procedure with her own ideas
to give comprehensible input for the students.
4.1.3 The Interview Result
Before the researcher presented the interview result, the researcher tried to
describe the participant and the process of the interview. There were two subjects to
67
be interviewed in this research. The subject of this study was the classroom teacher
and the school principle of Ananda Mentari Kindergarten School.
The first subject of this study was one female kindergarten teacher who had
been teaching in Ananda Mentari Jogjakarta for about 3 years and 15 kindergarten
students who set in Kindergarten B. To obtain trustworthiness of the narrative data,
the researcher also interviewed the teacher as the participant of the research. The
students were not interviewed since they were considered as young learner so their
opinion would not reliable enough. Therefore in this study, the researcher only
focused on the interview process that had already been done by the teacher and the
school principal. The purpose was to confirm the result and clarify un-observable
utterances which researcher found difficult to identify (coding process).
The second subject was the head master and also the founder of Ananda
mentari Kindergarten School Jogjakarta. The researcher needed to confirm the result
of the study. Furthermore, it was crucial for the researcher to know about the concept
(background) of the school, some school regulations, expectations, and understanding
about young learner interaction. In order to enrich the information about students, the
teacher and the school as well. Furthermore, it supported the finding of this research
by providing school principal’s opinion.
The first interview with the classroom teacher was done in May 17th 2016 in the
teacher’s room. The researcher arranged the appointment before met her. The
interview took time for about 30-40 minutes. The interviews with the teacher were
done in English. The teacher gave the researcher a lot information about teaching
68
learning process in her class. She was very helpful and answered the questions very
detail information.
The second interview with the head master (founder) was done in April 22nd
2016. The interview took 30 minutes and it was done in English too. The head master
gave in depth information about the concept of school, her own understanding and
expectation toward young learner classroom interaction. The researcher informed her
about the result if the study in order to get her confirmation.
Three months after observations ended, the teacher was interviewed in order to
obtain her opinion, reason and perspective on the communicative processes at
classroom. The interview was conducted after some basic findings and results to
develop interview questions. Furthermore, the interview guideline from wan (2010)
were also used to develop the questions. The researcher had already listed the crucial
point from the interview result. Below was the summary of interview with classroom
teacher, the complete one can be seen in appendix 8-9.
Table 4.7 Summary of the interview with the teacher
TOPIC RESPONSE
(Question)
Teacher  She has been teaching in kindergarten for 2 years in
Experience Indonesian language as language teaching.
 She has been teaching in Ananda Mentari almost 4 years.
 Teaching young learner, teach students with fun and
happy we hope that the student will enjoy the lesson
easily.
Student’s  The students are mostly have been learning in Ananda
background Mentari start from Baby class.
 Some of them speak English in their own home.
 The new comer students are able to adapt with the school
69
but they need more time to enjoy the class.

School Regulation  The student used 100% English in class during the
teaching and learning process.
 We only use Bahasa only in moral lesson so the students
do not forget their own native language.
Accepting  She greets the students by “friend” because she wants to
be their friend instead of teacher.
 The students always response her greeting and excited to
know about today activity.
Questioning  She often uses referential questions to explore students’
ideas about the topic.
 During the discussion teacher only use pictures and
videos.
 The printed books will be used during free-time after
snack time in the library.
 The teacher has prepared the material the day before we
teach the students together with curriculum division.
 There is no incorrect or correct answer.
Giving Direction  When the students do not understand the direction, we
will repeat the direction.
 Teacher stimulate students to aware their own mistake
and corrected by themselves.
 The long directions are given to give comprehensible
input for students.
Praising and  Teacher encourages the students when they more
Encouraging support to complete the task.
 The passive students will put near from the teacher by
arrange the seat position in the beginning of class.
 The passive students do not mean they are not smart but
they need more focus
Lecturing  Teacher gave explanation about facts such as teacher
personal experience or knowledge to the students.
 The long explanation means many inputs for students.
 Teacher used Indonesia when she explained new and
complicated term.
 Teacher has enough time to review the explanation in
the end of lesson or the day after.
70
 There are presentation, discussion and exploration

section in whole teaching.
Criticizing or  Teachers checking the students by moving around,
justifying asking, observing.
 So when the students act misbehavior during the class
teacher will remind them about the rule.
 There is a rule that have agreed in the early of class.
 The students are easy to control since they understood
the rule.
Student Talk  Student active in discussion because they get a lot of
input and learn English from them still are young.
 Teacher usually tend to stimulate student to answer in
long sentence in order to explore their experience
 The students love to interact with new person using
English.
 The teacher also help them by corrected both vocab and
structure.
The second interview had been done with the school principal of Ananda
Mentari Kindrgarten School. The questions were developed by Hartanto (2010) and
supported by the researcher understanding, experience and result of observation about
young learner classroom interaction. The goal was to seek the opinion and
understanding of the founder about young learner classroom interaction. In this sense,
researcher tried to carry out the school principle knowledge, opinion and idea in the
analysis process. The complete interview transcriptions can be seen in appendix 10.
Table 4.8 Summary of the interview with the school principal
TOPIC RESPONSE
(Question)
Concept of the  She established the school to help mothers in order to
school take care their kids during work day.
 They teach the students become independent and to
71
respect each other.

 In making curriculum, and established all the decision
from that philosophy of “mother and child”.
Founder’s  The easiest way to teach young learner because they
understanding will follow all the directions.
about interaction  The students are genius in their own way and they
accept everything that we give.
 She believes is not difficult for us to build relationship,
trust in teaching and learning condition.
Founder’s  Teachers have to be able to talk to the students as
expectation about friend not as teacher.
interaction  The basic communication is teacher has similar level
(teacher) with students.
Founder’s  The think that I know is they come to school every day
expectation about and I want to see them happy.
interaction  There is nothing they have to finish or mastered in
(students) some skills.
School Regulation  I believe English is the universal language that people
(using English to have to learn.
communicate)  If they want to explore and learn, provide them with
Indonesian movie or book will not be enough.
 We want to use the golden ages to build up the
vocabulary and ability to speak in English.
 They don’t speak bad words We control their
vocabularies
School Regulation  The regulation in kindergarten. We not supposed to
(focus on speaking give them writing and reading courses.
skill)  The point is that they do something because they want
to do not have to do.
 That is enough for me, my children have self-
confidence to talk to foreigner without any doubt in
making mistake.
School Regulation  We don’t have standard of grammar, we concern more
(grammar) English as communication purpose only.
 The more they learn English in the classroom the
grammar become better.
Student’s Behavior  Our philosophy we are not teacher but we are the
72
mothers.
 Because of the philosophy at the earlier, it becomes the
fundamental all the activities here.
4.2 DISCUSSIONS
The researcher has finished the research procedure such as, observation stages
and interview step. The first next stage is to describe the observation results. The
second stage is starting to relate between teacher’s opinion, point of view and the
reason in using her talk during the process of teaching and learning. The third stage is
adding school principle opinion toward young learner interaction, the understanding
and the expectation toward teachers and the student’s quality.
The research goal of this study is to discover the interaction pattern in the
young learner classroom analysis. The focus is to find out the predominant pattern
such as student participation, content cross, teacher control, and teacher support.
Furthermore, the description and the interpretation section is supported by interview
result both with the classroom teacher and the school principal.
In the discussion section, the researcher showed the answer of first research
question about the most predominant interaction pattern. The discussion started with
the most predominant pattern to less dominant pattern. The second research
questions, were also answered in this section about how the interaction happened in
Anand Mentari Kindergarten School. The description of interaction was attached in
every single type of talk both teacher and students.

73
4.2.1 Predominant Patterns of Young Learner Classroom Interaction
The pattern of classroom interaction on each variable in young learner
classroom interaction has been presented on the data result in the previous part of this
chapter. The interpretation of data results will be presented as follows, it started from
the most predominant pattern to less dominant patterns. The discussion would be
supported by the result of interview both from teacher and the school principal.
4.2.1.1 Student Participation
Based on the result, it could be concluded that most predominant pattern in the
classroom interaction was student’s participation. The proportion was (45.47%), it
showed that the students were active enough to participate. In responding the
teacher’s utterances such as questions, directions and explanations. The students not
only responded to the teacher but also initiated their opinion during the discussion.
(Mercer & Dawes, 2008) when students are active participate in spoken language, it
can help them enrich their target language sources and build their confidence to
communicate in English.
The student’s participation pattern consist of three types of student’s talk. There
are student talk responding and student initiating which has high percentage from the
total teaching-learning time. The proportion of the students’ participation pattern can
be seen in the graph 4.1 below.

74
Student Participation
30,00% 24,20% 25,80% 29%
24,80% 24,60%
17% 20%
20,00%
16,50%
10,00%
0,00%
First
Second
Third
Fourth
Student talk response Student talk initiation
Graph 4.1 Student Participation Pattern

From the graph, it can be seen that in the four times meeting students are active
enough in talking both initiating and responding. Student participation make up
(45.47%) of the total interaction pattern. However the student talk initiation was the
highest variable is (29%) in fourth meeting. It shows that, students tend to speak
initiating talk compared to responding talk (25.80%). Furthermore, the total number
of student talk is 226 utterances. Which are classified into 2 of different type
utterances (student talk response and student talk initiation).
The researcher tried to list the percentage in each meeting based on the graph
4.1. In first until fourth meeting, student talk response percentage were 24.20%,
25.80%, 24.80% and 29% or its represents 104 utterances. Next is the student talk
initiation the percentage starts the first meeting until fourth meeting 17%, 20%,
16.50% and 24.60% or it constitutes 122 utterances from the total 226 students talk
pattern. The proportion of student talk initiation and student talk response can be
seen in the graph 4.2 below.

75
The Distribution of Students' Talk

Student's
Silence
Student Talk3%Student Talk Student's Silence
Initiation Response
43% Student Talk Response
54%
Student Talk Initiation
Graph 4.2 The distribution of Students’ Talk
In addition, the researcher also provides the graph 4.2 about the distribution of
student talk. It have already been discussed that student participation pattern entails
of two variable student talk response and student talk initiation. Student talk
initiation was the highest frequent number in student talk category. It constituted
54% or 122 utterances. The second was student talk response, it represented 104 or
43% or 97 utterances from the total utterances found in the class discussion. The
reason was mostly because the students preferred to talk based on their idea instead
of just repeat what teacher has already told. The last variable of student participation
pattern was silence, it represented in low frequency 3% or 6 silence from all
discussions.
From the result, it can be seen we that the students are active, since they spent
most their time to talk and they rarely have silence during the discussion. The result
indicates that the students demonstrate their enthusiasm on responding and initiating
to their teacher stimulation in form of verbal behavior. Further analysis of the
results is made based on each categories.

76
4.2.1.1.1 Student Talk Response
The first variable of student participation pattern which has substantial
proportion is student talk response 43% or 97 utterances out of 226 total utterance.
Student response talk had been done by the student in responding to the teacher’s
talk. When teacher asked question, the students were directly gave their answer after
questions have distributed.
The classroom observation data showed that, student used student talk response
for one purpose. The purpose was to answer the questions about lesson. They have
already learnt or when the teacher tried to reviewed the previous lesson. The way
students responded to the teacher’s verbal interaction also short. The expressions
used by the student were clearly shown in the following extract 4.1.
Extract 4.1
T: “So is the map right or wrong?”
S: “Wrong” (1./039)
In this conversation, the teacher wanted to check if the students got the
correct map or not. Additionally, the teacher often asked the students a questions to
identify students’ understanding for performing certain behaviors. The student
responded teacher to let the teacher know about the problem that they had during
the class activity. As the result if the answer was “wrong” so the teacher can help
students to find the correct map.
Extract 4.2
T: “And yesterday we learnt about people who might travel to out
space. What we call those people?”
S: “Astronaut” (4./007)
77
In extract 4.2 students responded to the teacher about previous topic. The
reason why teacher used question to review the topic that they have already
discussed. According to Tang (2010) to provide adequate support and maintain the
student’s engagement in the course. When the students responded about their
memory in remembering topic “astronaut”. It means students got enough
understanding about the topic, so they kept remember thing they have already done.
The teacher paid attention to the student’s comprehension and provided the
appropriate, suitable support in form of asking them about thing they already learnt
in previous meeting.
Interview transcription 4.1
“We don’t give them special training to the students. When there is a guest
come they will act normally. We only inform them about the guest. They will
interest to the new people. In addition, they love to interact with new person
using English”
In the interview transcription 4.1 result with classroom teacher. The student talk
responses meant talk produced by the students, in order to respond students’ verbal
behavior about the content and the procedure. According to the teacher the classroom
interaction have already observed were the real context without any modification or
training. The classroom condition was naturally happened, because the students were
not easy distracted by new people in their class. As researcher found, the students
were nice to have interaction with the researcher.
The students seem more active when there was new person in class; even they
tried to get interaction using English with the researcher. When a student talked “who
are you?” to the researcher, the teacher justify students act by saying “is that polite to
78
ask who are you to Miss Martha?” In this example, it can be seen that teacher did
well controlled when student interacted to new people in class. It was not only matter
of using English but also properness of language used by the students.
“The students like to talk by their own idea rather just answer yes no
questions. I also prefer to ask them to produce longer answer so that
they can speak more to produce target language”
Another findings, the student gave their response in short answer when the
teacher asked about procedure or yes/no questions. According to the teacher, the
students tend to answer in long rather than short answer. It can be seen in interview
transcription 4.2. The student talk responses has lower amount of percentage rather
than the student talk initiation. During the observation, the teacher tended to give the
referential questions instead of yes/no questions in order to explore student’s critical
thinking. That was become the reason why the students respond was lower rather than
the student initiation talk. Hence, the habit of Ananda Mentari kindergarten school in
requiring students to speak longer in order to give their own idea.
4.2.1.1.2 Student Talk Initiation
The next student talk is student talk initiation as the most dominance in
student participation pattern. It represents 54% or 122 utterances from total of
student talk. The further information about student initiated talk. Through this type
of talk students are able to express their own ideas; initiating a new topic; freedom
to develop opinion and line of though like asking thoughtful questions and going
beyond the existing structure or procedure.

79
The student’s initiation talk has the high proportion. The topic decided in
teaching learning process such as camping, treasure and meals. Those influences
student’s motivation in initiating their opinion during interaction. In other words,
the students were confident and brave enough to initiate the interaction both with
teacher and friends. This statement was supported by Pinter (2006) good
characteristic of learner are those who have willingness to experiment the language
and initiate questions in interacting with teacher. Student were initiating their ideas
become a habit in this school which is shown by the use of English in daily
interaction.
The students were significantly during the discussion; those conditions are
influenced by the use of AVA (audio visual aid) such as video, picture, computer
program that was quite interesting for the students. Those kind of media help the
teacher to give clear explanation. In addition, it is also used to attract the student’s
attention.
The other reason is because there are only 15 students in one class so as the
result the teacher was able to give the extra attention and enough time for the
students to be active participated. The expressions used by the student are clearly
shown in the following extract 4.3.
Extract 4.3
T: “Excellent, Nathan, we can also can make a fire to burn a marshmallow”

S: “Wow marshmallow I have some in my home” (2./050)
According to the conversation in extract 4.3 the students not only responded
to teacher’s verbal behavior, but also they initiated their own idea about
80
marshmallow based on their experience. The researcher also found that student
initiated their talk by themselves without the teacher asked them to initiate. The
observational result showed, that the students initiated their own opinion more than
just response. It constituted 54% or 122 utterances. The second was the student talk
response, it represented 104 or 43% or 97 utterances from the total utterances found
in the class discussion. The student was able to develop his own ideas by
participating in the discussion.
Extract 4.4
S: “When the space shuttle is in out space the rocket will fall down back to the
earth”
T: “Emm thank you Fian for such great opinion, but we will talk it later”
(4./015)
It can be seen from extract 4.4; students initiated their talk during the
discussion. When teacher was giving input in form of explanation to the students.
Based on Hai Bee (2007) teacher was able to reinforce and build of students’ ideas
content by inform the students about interesting content. It meant the more student-
initiated comments were occurring before the teacher reinforcement, the more target
language they produced during the interaction. This statement was supported by
Swain (1985); pushing learners to produce more comprehensible output have a long-
term effect. Since, when students initiated their talk they were able to practice
numerous vocabularies, the language function and promote student’s self-confidence
in expressing their opinion in front of the class.

81
“We use English everyday even some of them use English to communicate with
their family. They get input not only from school so they learning by doing.
They listen to the teacher, movie, and song so they become acquitted with the
pronunciation and grammar they also learn by observing people around them.
The teacher also helps them by correct them if they speak in wrong structure”
Students were not allowed to speak Indonesian during school. They were
allowed only in Bahasa Indonesian lesson once in week. So the students were still
able to speak their own native language. The student used English as main classroom
language since the school regulation required both teacher and student to speak in
English. Sometimes students’ talk was not correct but that was not the problem since
the goal was to make them active. The teacher usually helped them to express
students’ idea by stimulate them to keep talking. Based on the observation, the
teacher listened all students’ answer, by doing this the student felt that they were
respected by the teacher. Merrill Swain (1985) has taken Krashen’s idea one step
further with her suggestion that students acquired language most meaningfully when
they also have opportunity for comprehensible “output”, or “pushed output”.
“Yes, teacher usually tends to stimulate student to answer in long sentence in

order to explore their experience during the lesson. To promote them to speak
more in target language about their own personal opinion”
The classroom activities in Ananda Mentari Kindergarten School were
dominated by the students or we called as student centered classroom. It was not
typical classroom characteristic in Indonesia which the teacher was always
dominating the class interaction. In this young learner classroom interaction, the
82
students spent the most of their time in responding and initiating their ideas their own
idea during the discussion. Ellis (1994) argued that, the interaction provided
opportunities to encounter input or to practice the target language. It meant when the
students asked the teacher questions, interaction between the teachers and learners
became obvious. The resulting teacher talk can attract the learner’s attention and may
be more facilitative acquisition of the target language.
4.2.1.1.3 Student Silence
The last variable of the student participation pattern is silence. It represents in
low frequency 3.3% or 16 silence from total utterances 478 found during class
discussions. In the verbal communication, when the students do not produce sound
to response to the teacher questions is called silence. From the result it can be seen
that the students were active, since they spent most their time to talk and rarely they
have silence during the discussion. The expression and situation experienced by the
student are clearly shown in the following excerpts:
Extract 4.5
T: “Why are you smiling Peter? What will you do if the volcano eruption
happened?”
S: “………….” (Silent)
T:” When it is really happen you don’t have time to smile because it is so
scared”
S:”I will run away to safe place, seeking for exit door miss” (3. /030)
Sometimes the students became silent because they did not understand the
teacher’s questions. As the result, the students did not say anything in responding to
the teacher’s verbal behavior. The teacher helped the students to find the answer by
giving a clue. Furthermore, the teacher also provided longer time to give student
83
extra time found the answer. According to Maley (2003) the teacher was providing
longer time to wait might lead to students’ profound output which further improves
the classroom interaction.
Based on the observation result, the teacher’s question in the extract 4.5
means questioning about the students’ behavior during they had done the volcano
eruption simulation. The students should in the serious attention to move. It was
crucial to save their life when volcano eruption happened. The situation was
students keep talking to each other’s. That became the reason of the teachers’ verbal
behavior on this conversation. Furthermore, the student’s silence meant that, they
would follow teachers’ instruction to be serious and focus to do the volcano
eruption simulation.
Extract 4.6
T:”I think Stefani has to pay attention, you don’t even finish your space
shuttle”
S:”…………..” (Silent) (4./072)
In the extract 4.6 it can be seen that students were silent because the teacher
tried to criticize student’s behavior. This conversation indicated, the teacher let the
conversation “blank” without any talk. The goal was to let the student realized her
mistake. Sometimes a teacher found a condition that should be faced by any action
to control the class. The example is in extract 4.6, when the teacher delivered an
utterance to make student focus on the lesson. The silence period in this case was
happened because student realizes she was wrong. Teacher kept silent and dis what
the teacher asked for to finish her space shuttle. Schmidt (2002) cited in Wang
(2010) stated that a connection exists between learning and attention. He further
84
explained that noticing, which is required learner focus, was a crucial part of the
learning process. Finally we can conclude about student’s the silence period was not
only they did not understand or confused about teacher’s behavior, but also they
realized ,figured out their mistake and attention the warning from the teacher.
”Usually the passive students we put them in the front near the teacher so they
can understand the direction, explanation that we give to them. Sometimes, I
usually provide them longer time to answer the questions”
In the table of interview result, it can be seen about the teacher’s opinion
toward student’s silence in class discussion. Walsh (2011) states the meaning of
students’ silence in verbal communication was not always confusion or they do know
nothing. As the researcher stated before, silence in class has two meaning or
condition. First when the teacher was asking them to stop certain disturbed behavior.
Second, when students could not understand teacher’s explanation or direction. The
teacher provided longer time to wait the student responds the questions. This
statement was in line with cited Maley (2003) the teacher was allowing longer time
for students to make their responses to be promoted and facilitated the interaction. In
addition, the teacher concerned about avoiding student’s misunderstanding. By
arranging students’ seat position was applied by teacher to make sure student got
clear information during class discussion.
The student’s participation pattern was the most frequently happen during the
interaction. From this condition, the researcher concluded that teacher was success
to lead the interaction. The other factor was because the students’ background, they
85
got many language inputs. It can be seen from the result, students were mostly
responded and initiated their idea. Finally, the teacher, and the students supported
each other to create a compressible interaction.
The conclusion from the student participation pattern was related to
comprehensible output and comprehensible input. Input (lecturing) was defined as
language as language which a learner heard or received and from which her or she
can learn. The output was kind of language that the student produce since the
teacher stimulated them through questioning. IRF (Initiation, respond and feedback)
also gives direct influence to the way teacher and student do interact in classroom.
4.2.1.2 Content Cross
Content Cross
15,70% 16,60%
13,70% 14,50%
12,60%
11,20% 10,40%
8,30%
FIRST SECOND THIRD FOURTH
Lecturing Questioning
Graph 4.3 The Content Cross Pattern
In the four meetings, the content cross is the second predominant pattern; it is
26.28% or 129 utterances from the total 478 utterances found in four meetings. It
could be showed that the teacher spent the teaching-learning process in asking
questions and lecturing. In the graph 4.3 it can be seen the distribution of both
lecturing and questioning in each meeting. In the first meeting is 15.70% for
questioning and 12.60 % for lecturing. In the second meeting is 16.60% for
86
questioning and 8.7 % for lecturing. In the third meeting is for 14.50% questioning
and 13.70% for lecturing. The last meeting found the percentage for lecturing 11.20%
and 10.40% for questioning. From the graph we can conclude that questioning
become the most frequent variable compared to lecturing in content cross pattern.
The proportion of the content cross pattern in each variable can be seen in the
graph below:
THE DISTRIBUTION OF LECTURING AND

QUESTIONING
Questioning ;
QUESTIONING
55,20%
LECTURING Lecturing; 44,80%
0,00% 10,00% 20,00% 30,00% 40,00% 50,00% 60,00%
Graph 4.4 The distribution of Lecturing and Questioning
In this study the researcher also provided graph 4.4 about the distribution of the
content cross pattern. The content cross pattern can be divided into two types of
teacher talk; lecturing and questioning. The questioning variable is the highest
frequent percentage in content cross pattern category. The questioning constitutes
55.20% or 72 utterance. The second variable is lecturing; it represents 44.80% or 57
utterance from the total utterances 129 talk in the four times class discussions. The
percentage was not too much so that the teacher was not dominating the interaction. It
pointed that teacher stimulate the students to be active by delivering question and
gave the input through lecturing. The researcher also found that the teacher gave her
lecturing part in long explanation and contained full of the new term or contents. This
87
become the reason why questioning has higher frequency rather than lecturing. In
addition, teacher asks different questions with different students too. In order to seek
different information both from different question and students.
4.2.1.2.1 Lecturing
From the graph 4.4, it could be seen that in the four times meetings the
teacher was giving facts or opinion about content or procedure with her own ideas
to make meaningful input for students. It represents 44.80% or 57 utterance from
the total utterances 129 talk in the four times class discussions. It can also be seen
from the percentage were significantly high (15.70%) in the first meeting.
The explanations were given by the teacher typical long and complicated
phrase for young learner. But since the students have already spoken fluently in
English, they understood it. If there was new words the teacher would inform them
about the meaning and how to pronounce it in correct way.
Giving information in lecturing the students was crucial during the teaching
and learning activity. Input was defined as language which was a learner hears or
receives and from which her or she can learn (Ellis, 2008). In this case, the teacher
was giving information to make students understand the lesson. In other word
through lecturing the teacher already gave input in form of new content information
and new vocabulary for the students. According to Ellis (2008) paying attention to
input on the importance of listening skill from increased listening opportunities. It
indicates lecturing or presentation section gives the learner the opportunity to gather
meanings and to associate them with the language. Hence, students could give their
88
full attention in understanding the messages that were being communicated without
pressure to respond immediately. The expressions used by the teacher is clearly
shown in the following extract 4.7:
Extract 4.7
T: “So yesterday we learnt about storm, flood and land slide. And today we will
learnt another disaster”
S: “It must be sad when we discuss about disaster Miss” (3./004)
The context of the conversation in extract 4.7 was the teacher recall the
students’ memory about the previous topic. The teacher also informed about todays’
topic they would discuss. The significant purpose of inform about topic before started
lesson was to prepare the students to think about the material would be explained by
teacher.
In extract 4.7 students initiated their feeling about the topic. According to
Swain (1985) only in under certain circumstance the output contributes to improve
the target language acquisition and learning process. It meant when the teacher
delivered a questions to students, she gave opportunities for students to produce the
language output meaningful and the comprehensible way. In addition, students have
already remembered about topic they already knew. The result was the discussion
became smooth and teacher was able to give more input to the students. As Cameron
(2001) states that, the information received as input, was mentally processed, and the
results students would produce the output. It meant the language exposure was given
by the teacher stimulated students to produce the output.
Extract 4.8
T: “The airport must be closed. The pilot can’t drive the airplane”
89
S: “The people will stay at home” (3./036)
In extract 4.8 the teacher was not only inform but she explained the condition
when volcano eruption happened. The teacher wanted the students realized about the
condition so easy for them to use their own imagination. In addition, not all students
known about airport regulation during disaster happened. Some students have
already understood but some of them amazed about the fact given by the teacher. The
input in form of new information became significant stimulation for the students to
produce language output. The fact, after got new term information, students initiated
their opinion “The people will stay at home” The people will stay at home. This type
of situation contributed to create active and lively classroom.
Extract 4.9
T : “The smoke and the dust come out from the volcano may burn
everything. Actually the dust is very good for people to plant vegetable and
fruit. They are very useful for planting because it makes the soil fertile. That
was the reason people plant the vegetable and fruit in the high land, because
the soil there are very fertile”
S : “Wow I like to plant fruit in my field (3./044)
In the conversation above sometimes the teacher gave long and complicated
explanations to the student. The teacher gave information about the positive aspect of
volcanoes eruption based on her experiences. Teacher not only gave input from text
book, videos and picture but also teacher was adding her personal experience to
enrich her explanation. At those situation students were required to listen carefully.
The input Hypothesis by Swain (1985) claims that language input in form of listening
comprehension is important in the language program. It meant learners have built
their target language competence through comprehending input. According to the

90
input hypothesis explained by Krashen. The input must be comprehensible in that it is
near the learner’s current level of development, called I, and the level that learner will
get to next must slightly beyond the level at which he or she already acquired, called
i+1(Krashen, 1982). In this case, the teacher gave a long explanation therefore
students got input in form of vocabulary, content and pronunciation. Later they were
able to practice what they have already listened. Some of the explanations were from
the teacher’s personal experience, the teacher tried to give explanation beyond from
students’ knowledge. As the result, students acquired more about the content and
target language comprehension.
When the teacher shared her experience, students were interested to the
explanation even it contained new vocabulary. The strategies the teacher used was
significantly effective. During her explanation the teacher also supported her talk
using gesture (body movement). The example, the teacher moved her hand to show
mountain to make students understand high land as the new term of vocabulary. The
researcher also realized, those became the reason why lecturing percentage was not as
high as questioning. Once the teacher gave input which was comprehended a lot
information can be responded by more than two students.
”Usually we give explanation about facts such as teacher personal experience

or knowledge to the students. So it can be another input for students’
understanding”
There were three parts in on meeting were covered by the teacher. First, the
teacher gave presentation to the student about the topic using pictures and videos.
Second part was discussion, in this part students felt freely to express their opinion
91
using their own idea. The third part was exploration, students had to complete the
hand craft or activity assigned by the teacher. The teacher acted as supervisor, model
and facilitator, to lead the classroom interaction became smoothly. The researcher
found during the observation, it could be seen in the interview transcript 4.6. When
the teacher explained the long information students were silent, the reason mostly
they tried to obtain the meaning.
”Usually if we have enough time we will review the explanation in the end of
lesson. Or teacher will review the lesson the next day of lesson to check
students’ understanding.”
The teacher used 100% English as the classroom and the instructional language.
It could be seen, in the interview result with the teacher. The teacher gave explanation
about facts and also her personal experience. In the observation, the researcher found
that the information and explanations were considered long and complicated.
According to the teacher the reason was because the long information had two main
functions. The first function was as comprehensible input for the students in form
content, vocabulary, and practice their listening skill. The second function was to
provide students to memorize and to acquire the information, since they were enough
time for them to obtain the information. Therefore, the students learnt different topic
in each meeting as researcher already discussed.
There were several ways to check whether students understood or not. First,
teacher would review the lesson the next day of lesson to check students’
understanding. From that way the teacher could know who was listening to the
teacher and who did not. Second, if there was enough time, the teacher reviewed the
92
previous lesson the next meeting. In the interview also found that every Friday
teachers had arranged activity with curriculum division. The topic can be from the
teacher idea and what was happening around student’s daily life. So the discussion
would be interesting since students gave their attention to the topic they liked much.
4.2.1.2.2 Questioning
Another variable in the content cross pattern was the questioning strategy, the
proportion ia (60.60%) in the third meeting observation. The questioning function is
the highest frequent percentage in content cross pattern category. The questioning
constitutes 55.20% or 72 utterance out of 478 utterances in four meetings. The
questioning represented the predominant variable in content cross pattern. The
researcher found during the observation, most questions were given by teacher to
review or to seek more specific information from the students. The teacher asked
question as her strategy to increase or to stimulate the students’ participation.
Furthermore, the teacher was questioning the students about the material and the
procedure in order to make student active in responding and initiating their own ideas
related to the topic. Since the school decided different topic for each meeting, so it
would be good for the students to increase their knowledge and avoid boredom
during the class discussion.
Extract 4.10
T: “What we can do while we are having camping?”

S: “playing guitar, eat and sleep” (2./024)
In the beginning of presentation time, the teacher asked about “what can do
while having camping”. Having a camping was not new experiences for the students.
93
The teacher asked about their ideas about camping to explore students’ critical
thinking. The questioning about the topic also as stimulation for them to do brain
storming things related to camping activity. Swain (1995) particularly emphasize that
it is only when learners are pushed to use the target language. The teacher pushed the
students to talk by asking them, in those time the students had to answer the question.
Automatically, they would produce what it was called as a language output.
The questioning was the highest percentage, it indicated that the teacher
wanted students to become active in class by answering teacher’s questions. Fleta
(2005) states that asking the right questions in the class can provide students a bridge
to acquire the material. During the discussion, the teacher helped the students to
answer the question by providing pictures. Later they would have the real camping
experience in class. The students remembered all the things related to camping when
they have ever done that. In the conversation, it can be seen that students initiated
“sleep, playing guitar and eat” as the activity during camping. In other word, teacher
was success to let them explored their own idea.
Extract 4.11
T:”So after you finish the space shuttle. Are you going to travel to the moon?”
S:”No, I am afraid if I can’t go back to the earth”(4/048)
Extract 4.11 occurred when students had done their own works called space
shuttle. In this conversation the teacher asked a referential questions, it meant teacher
expected students to answer based on their ideas. Furthermore, in the end of lesson
students had already knew about material related to space shuttle. The student
initiated a unique answers “No, I am afraid if I can’t go back to the earth”. From the
94
answer it can be concluded that students had already acquainted about the term and
success to imagine the situation how if they became astronaut.
Teacher could help to develop students’ ideas by asking questions. Liu and
Elicker (2005) found that when teachers asked specific questions or asked for
students, children felt more confident and secure. It meant questioning was one of
common strategy to stimulate students to participate active in discussion. Through
questioning teachers were able to stimulate and guide the student to produce the
target language confidently.
On teacher’s questioning behavior, the teacher asked mainly referential
questions. The reason was because the teacher tried to explore students’ ideas through
referential questions instead of using display questions which was not required long
and complicated answer. It can be seen in the extract 4.11 “What we can do while we
are having camping?” Hsu (2001) states in her study discussing referential and
display questions: “teachers’ using questioning strategies effectively contributes to
students’ language development”. All teachers should avoid using merely display
questions in classroom. In other words, referential questions should be encouraged so
as to increase students’ interest in participation in the true conversation. In brief,
referential questions often leaded to a start the true conversation between teachers and
learners. The improvement of classroom interaction between the teacher and students.
In this case teacher did the right strategies to ask students in referential questions.
“I want student to explore their idea. So that’s why we don’t ask about yes/ no
question but we want to know their own understanding about the lesson”
95
“Actually there is no incorrect or correct answer. When the answer is just too
far out of context we just remind them. We can say “we can talk about that next
time; we do not discuss it today”
The researcher found based on the interview, if the students cannot answer the
question. The teacher would not correct them directly, but when the answer was too
far out off the context teacher just remind them. In fact, mostly students were able to
answer the questions were given by the teacher. The observation result show, students
just needed more time to answer the questions. Teachers’ providing longer wait time
might to students profound output which further improves the classroom interaction.
As Maley (2003) argues that the more voluntary answer, longer response, and more
questions appear with the teachers’ allowing longer wait time for students to make
their response. In other words, the researcher found that the teacher provides more
opportunity for the students to be active in the discussion by questioning.
In questioning variables the teacher and students was active in a conservation or
exchanges the information. Teaching exchanges consisted of I (opening),R (response)
and F (follow up) (Walsh, 2012). The conversation was to convey information from
the students and response related to the students’ answer and the last is follow-up the
way the teacher give their opinion toward students’ opinion.
Both observations and interview result showed the teacher and the school
regulation. The way teacher preferred to use referential question instead of display
questions. It indicated that the teacher aware of providing many chances for students
to confirm their own knowledge. The fact English in Ananda Mentari kindergarten
school was not only use for lesson but also practice for the real communication goals.
96
4.2.1.3 Teacher Support
Based on the finding on the pattern of interaction also showed the teacher
support pattern is (16.70%) or 80 utterances from 478 as total utterances. It is the
third pattern found during four observation meetings. From the graph, it can be
pointed that during the interaction teacher was praised and encouraged the students at
the most in the fourth meeting (10.30%) or 15 utterances. In contrary, the teacher
rarely used students’ idea in all four meeting since the percentage of each meeting
was considered low (2.90%) or 4 utterances at the most. The third variable was accept
feelings, which was done in the beginning of class in order to greet the students. The
result was also relatively low (5.20%) or 6 utterances at the most in the first meeting.
TEACHER SUPPORT
Accepts feelings Praise or encouragement Accepts or uses ideas of students
10,30%
6,30%
5,20%
4,10% 5% 4,80% 4,40%
2,50% 2% 2,90%
1,30%
0%
First Second Third Fourth
Graph 4.5 Teacher support Pattern
The result indicated that the teacher used relatively little time to accept feeling
and to praise or encourage the students as well as accepting students’ ideas. In teacher
support pattern the teacher gave lot opportunities for student to talk by giving
exploratory talk. This statement is in line with Barnes (2008) “exploratory talk is
purposeful conversation designed by the teacher, which provide chances to students

97
to engage in conversation”. From the observation result it could be seen the example,
express new ideas, arrange information’s and paraphrase the ideas. They were used to
encourage students to perform and participate actively toward the lesson. The
proportion of teacher as whole results could be seen on the graph below.
THE DISTRIBUTION OF ACCEPT FEELING,

ENCOURAGEMENT AND USE STUDENTS' IDEAS
Percentage Quantity
Accept or Use student ideas 18,50%

9
Praising encouragement 55%
34
Accepts Feeling 26,50%
19
Graph 4.6 Distribution of Accept Feeling, Encouragement and Use Students’ Ideas
The result shows that praising and encouragement become the main parts of
others two variables. Further information about the teacher support pattern would be
presented. To describe the graph 4.6 above, the total number of utterances in the
teacher support pattern is 80 utterances or 16,73% from total 478 utterances. Those
utterances are classified into three different functions. The most frequent function is
the praising encouragement; it constitutes 34 or 55% from the total 80 utterances
found. The second frequently occurs function is accepts feeling, it constitutes 19 or
equal to 26, 50%. The next function is accept or use student ideas, it constitutes 9 or
equal to 18.50%.
4.2.1.3.1 Praising or encouragement
The observation results show that the teacher uses mostly praise and
encouragement variable as the most predominant talk compare to accept feeling and
98
use student ideas in the fourth meetings. The most frequent function is praising
encouragement; it constitutes 34 or 55% from the total 80 utterances found. The
researcher found that teacher’s behavior of praising and encouraging students are
occurred during the discussion. Nunan 1991 cited in Hasan 2007, positive feedback
had two principal functions: to let students know that they have performed correctly,
so to increase motivation through praise. In other words, the function of praise and
encouragement could provide suitable support according to the students’ need such as
enhancing students’ motivation and learning motivation. According to Hai & Bee
(2006) the teacher acted as a motivator for student for acquired and active
participated in classroom interaction. Teachers gave facilitate to the students in
learning foreign language, for example the teacher can facilitate the fun conditions in
teaching and learning process. In this case, teacher was praising and encouraging
student.
Extract 4.12
S: “The rain must be hard. The rain will clean the dust everywhere” (3/038)
T: “Thank you Ruel, you are smart to know about that”
The situation was, the teacher showed a picture of volcano dust in the field. As
soon after that, in extract 4.12 students delivered their talk about “rain can clean the
dusk”. After that the teacher was praising her by saying “thank you Ruel, you are
smart to know about that”. Feedback is probably the single most important ingredient
for teachers to improve their teaching behavior (Cross 1996; Snell et al.2002). The
point was the student produced her own idea without asking from the teacher. In the
conversation, the teacher directly gave feedback for the students in form of praising.
99
Moreover, the teacher did not use of phrase such as “Okay” and “Good”. She tended
to give feedback in form of sentence; it means the praise was done meaningfully. In
this case, the teacher praised her to make her proud of herself since the idea was
brilliant to know about rain and dust. Next time student would repeat similar thing
because she felt teacher was respecting her as much.
Extract 4.13
S: “Miss I forgot to bring old bottle”

T: “Oke, Nafisa will gives you a bottle” (4/020)
In extract 4.13 the teacher encouraged student made a space shuttle even she
forgot to bring the old bottle. The important aspect from the conversation was, when
a student got a problem and she almost gave up. The teacher kept in encouraging her
to continue. The teacher provided a solution in form of gave bottle to create space
shuttle. The researcher also found that the teacher stimulated others students to help
Nafisa by giving bottle. The result was good; one of the students gave one of her
bottle to Navisa. Lyster (2007) states teachers distribute their praise to the whole and
individuals at their performance and encourage the class throughout the lesson. It
was effective way for the teacher to teach student about helping each other’s. In this
case, students were not only developed their critical thinking but also their awareness
to help their friends.
The teacher and the students interaction in form of praising and encouraging
was understood to be an important issue in a learning process. In this study the class
participants were kindergarten students who always needed the teacher support so
they were able to speak active during the discussion. Sometimes, the students as
100
young learner found problem, it decreased their own confident to continue activity.
The praising talk, it could be seen in the excerpt 4.12. The teacher spoke “excellent,
smart” to praise students’ answer about the topic. The encouraging behavior could be
seen in the line 4.13. When one student got a problem about the material. She forgot
to bring old bottle to make space shuttle. Once she was stuck and almost give up,
teacher encouraged her by providing a bottle. In instance, both encouraging and
praising support student in doing the activity and expressing their own ideas.
“Actually no. Usually when they need more support from the teacher to
answer. For the example if the students are so silence and then as a teacher I
will say “I will give you a star if you answer the questions” in order to
encourage them”
“Usually the passive students we put them in the front near from the teacher so
they can understand the direction, explanation that we give to them. The
passive students will stay in front of the teacher and the active one will sit at the
back”
As shown in interview transcriptions above about teacher opinion toward in
what way she supported students during the interaction. The interesting finding was
discovered based on the interview result. According to the teacher not all students in
her class were active, some of them were considered as passive students. Passive
students in this case, meant a group of students who would respond only when
teacher asked them. “The passive students will stay in front of the teacher and the
active one will sit at the back” these the special treatment was given by the teacher
deals with passive students. Chet Meyers in Bishop (2000) suggests some basic rules
for consistently encouraging the student interaction: “arrange and use the classroom
101
space to encourage interaction and create a friendly environment”. In this case, the
teacher arranged the seat to keep close to passive students, in order to keep
encouraging them and make sure they understand every single explanation and
procedure. Finally, the teacher tended to give them extra attention for them to avoid
class domination by active students.
4.2.1.3.2 Accepts Feelings
The first variable of teacher support pattern is accepting feeling. It constitutes
19 or equal to 26,50% of the total 80 utterances in teacher support pattern. The
teacher used accepts feelings action/talk in the beginning of the class. The
observation data showed that the teacher used greeting and asking function to the
students. A more detailed analysis of accept feeling function is made by considering
the conversation found between teacher and students during the interaction. The
expressions used by the teacher are can be seen in the excerpts below:
Extract 4.14
T: “Good morning friend, how are you today?”

S: “Good morning Miss Nining, I am fine thank you” (1./002)
The accept feeling utterances were given by the teacher generally to create a
good relationship with the students and built a lively atmosphere before the teacher
started the lesson to explain, discuss and asked them related to the material. In fact,
accept feeling utterances also have a purpose to attract students’ attention when they
were busy with their own activity in the beginning of the lesson.
Extract 4.15
102
T: “Good morning friends. Are you ready for today’s activity? On Monday
Miss Martha told you about how to save the earth”
S: “And how to save animal” (4/003)
In extract 4.15 it can be seen, the teacher not only greeted the students but also
teacher re-introduces the guest who already taught them in the previous meeting.
Teacher reminds students about the topic ‘how to save our mother earth’. The
essential purpose in that conversation was that teacher brought the students back to
the previous activity in order to make them remember both material and the guest
teacher. Later students would not curious about the guest in their classroom. Hence,
they would ready to accept the explanation and express their ideas freely.
During the observation time, the researcher found the teacher used accept
feeling talk not only to start the class but also to obtain the students attention. It can
be seen in the extract 4.15 “Are you ready, friend for today’s activity”. Instead of
using greeting, the teacher preferred to ask to the student to get their curiosity about
class activity and also prepared students to be ready to do several activities. In
addition, in the line 2 the teacher combined both greeting and reviewed the previous
material (topic). The teacher also let the student remembered about the guest teacher
(the researcher) who have already taught them about ‘save our earth’. The reason was
mostly because the teacher wanted to re-introduce the guest in their class. As the
result the student more focus on the discussion without questioning about the guest.
“I want to be their friend, not as a teacher. So as the result we can tell the story
and we can learn together. Not as a teacher and student I will lean together
with them as a friend”

103
“Yes, they always response my greeting usually in the beginning of the class
before we learn together in classroom”
Another particular finding was the teacher called her students as ‘friend ‘instead
of kids or student. It could be seen in the interview result above. According to the
teacher, she expected to get close relation with the students. It was effective action to
stimulate students in order respond to their “friend” their ideas. Learning to share and
to express ideas was very crucial skill. The class situation became such lively and
active because there was no teacher and students but good friend who share, talk and
learn together.
4.2.1.3.3 Accepts or uses ideas of students.
The table 4.6 about the distribution of accept feeling, praising and encouraging
and accepts or use ideas of students. The result showed that the less frequent variable
in teacher support pattern is accepts or uses ideas of students it constitutes 9 or equal
to 18.50% from the total 80 utterances found. The distribution in each meeting also
substantial low the teacher rarely uses students’ idea in all four meeting since the
percentage of each meeting is considered low (2.90%) or 4 utterances at the most.
This variable become the most infrequent used by the teacher we can clearly see it is
only 9 utterance during the discussions. Based on Flanders cited in Hai & Bee (2007)
stated that uses idea of students can be identify such as clarifying, using, interpreting,
summarizing the ideas of students. Furthermore, the ideas must be rephrased by the
teacher but still be recognized as being student contribution.
Extract 4.14
S: “I have ever tried the marshmallow and the color is colorful I also like the taste”
104
T: “I agree with you Nathan, the taste is good” (2/026)
This conversation occurred in excerpt 1.14 between the teacher and a student
indicates that the teacher delivered their talk in form of accepts students ideas when
students initiated his ideas related to the topic. “The more the input is queried, recycle
and paraphrased, to increase its comprehensibility, the greater its potential usefulness
as input” (Mitchell and Lyles, 2004). In the conversation the researcher found the
teacher did 2 kind of behavior actions. First, she agreed about the taste of
marshmallow by saying “I agree with you”. Second behavior action was repeating
and paraphrasing student’s sentence by saying “the taste is good”. In this
conversation the contribution of the student was considered as a meaningful and
comprehensible output. The reason was because students were able to share his idea
based on his own experience toward marshmallow. Even the student got the input not
from the teacher explanation but during the discussion, the student was able to
produce output later she would get feedback from the teacher.
Extract 4.15
S: “Me me me Miss I want to say something, the rocket bring a lot of fire and
rocket”
T: “So according to Nathan. The rocket needs fire to be launched to the outer
space”
(4/011)
The setting of conversation in excerpt 1.15 was during presentation time leaded
by the teacher. The teacher used student’s ideas about rocket to support her
explanation. In the beginning the researcher found that the ideas were given by
students was long, but not well managed and difficult to understand. Even somehow
the idea was too difficult to be understood by others students. In this case, the teacher
105
uses student’s ideas to repeating and paraphrasing the idea became more
comprehensible. As the result, the idea that before too broad or unclear became
comprehensible, meaningful and easy to understand.
“Actually there is no incorrect or correct answer. When the ideas are still
related to the topic I will accept it. The other reason is to enrich the discussion
since there are will be various ideas both from the teacher and students. In
addition, to respect to student ideas so next time they will express their ideas
without any afraid of being rejecting”
“Sometimes, when I think that student ideas is good and related to the topic. I
will re-use it in class by repeating so other student are able to know it. In that
way, students also active participate in discussion in contributing their own
ideas such as opinion, experiences and their background knowledge they get
when they are not in school time”
“By repeating students’ utterance for correct utterance, the teacher appeared to
be ‘trying to help students move a head in their inter language development”
(Allwright and Bailey in Richard and Lockhart, 1994). The interesting fact about this
excerpt was the ideas must be rephrased by the teacher but still be recognized as
being the student contribution. The teacher was respecting the student’s idea as a
great contribution so next time the student would not be afraid to share their
understanding or experience because there was no wrong or right answer on that
particular discussion. The teacher helped students to give their contribution in form of
opinion or idea.
The limitation of the roles of IRF pattern defined by Sinclair and Coulthard
(1975). The teacher’s role was not only check the students’ works but also to provide
feedback, as more the case in the real-world communication. IRF was also concerned
106
about how teacher use or accept student’s ideas such as paraphrasing or repeating the
answer. In the real-communication setting was merely in the domain of correct
answer but how the students performing their opinion.
4.2.1.4 Teacher Control
The fourth pattern is teacher control, it also considered as the less frequent
pattern in total four observations in Ananda Mentari Kindergarten School. Based on
the finding on interaction pattern, it indicates 11.5% or 55 utterances from 478 as
total utterances. The result shows, the proportion giving direction variable are 40
utterances and criticize or justifying authority 15 utterances. It can be seen in the
graph 4.7 below. It can be pointed that during the interaction the teacher gave
direction the students at the most in the fourth meeting (10.50%) or 15 utterances. In
addition, it can be seen that criticizing or justifying authority is less frequent variable.
The proportion is 5.80% or 5 utterances in the second meeting at the most.
Teacher Control
0,15
10,50% 11%
0,1 8,30%
5,80%
0,05 3,40% 2,70% 2,90%
2,10%
0 0 0 0
0
Meeting Giving direction Criticizing or Justifying authority
Graph 4.7 Teacher Control Distribution Pattern
The result indicated that the teacher spent a little tome for giving directions and
the criticizing or justifying activity. The reason was mostly because the teacher was
more focus on the lesson and the discussion. Furthermore, the classroom condition or
107
the school environment was well conditioned and perceived not to need so much
control from the teacher. The students were nice they follow all the teachers’
direction and do the lesson activity by themselves. The proportion of the teacher as
whole results can be seen on the graph 4.8 below.
The Distribution of Giving Direction and

Criticizing or Justifying
Criticizing or
Justifying
28% Giving Direction
Giving Direction
72% Criticizing or Justifying
Graph 4.8. The Distribution of Giving Direction and Criticizing
The graph 4.8 shows that giving direction become the primary parts of
another variable criticizing or justifying. More details information about the teacher
control interaction pattern will be presented. In order to describe the graph 4.8
above, the total number of utterances are distributed by the teacher is 55 utterances
or 11.50% from total 478 utterances. Those utterances are categorized into two
function variable. The most frequent function is giving direction, it constitutes 40 or
72% from the total 55 utterances found. The second frequently occurs function is
criticizing or justifying authority, it constitutes 15 or equal to 28%. The expressions
used by the students and teacher are clearly shown in the following excerpt.
4.2.1.4.1 Giving Direction
Extract 4.17
108
T: “We have also have sandwich, that we can make it outside after this. We will
try to spread the bread with strawberry jam and butter. Later you will cut the
bread and slice it and spread the butter by yourself”
S: “Yes. I want to do it soon, Miss” (2/029)
In the conversation above the teacher gave certain direction to the students
during lesson was a crucial part. In term of controlling and directing procedure of
certain activity. The Teacher had officially authority to control the class. In other
word, the teacher was able to lead the class according to the plan that had already
designed before. The teacher was giving direction usually when she prepared the
students for activities such as game, role play and simulation. The teacher needed to
ensure that the students understand what they was going to do next. In this
conversation the teacher not only gave the direction but also the instruction.
In extract 4.17 the teacher used those utterances to direct the students to make a
sandwich. The Students were required to make a sandwich by themselves so it was a
must for the teacher to direct in every single action. So as the result, students were
able to complete the task since they were able to understand what should to do in
finishing the tasks.
Extract 4.18
T: “We will put our mask like this. The green one should be outside and the
white one is inside. Let’s us put on to cover our nose and month from the dust
when we are breathing”
S: “The mask is too big Miss” (3/055)
The conversation between the teacher and the student in extract 4.18 was
indicated as directing utterances. The teacher was directing students to wear a masker
during volcano eruption disaster. The researcher found that, mostly of the students
were not familiar with the mask. It was crucial for teacher to guide them how to wear
109
a mask. In addition, the teacher also gave them information about the purpose of
wearing a mask. The process of directing was going well, because the students did all
the instructions were given by the teacher.
“Usually we know that they understand by doing what the direction is. For
the example in exploration time we ask them to draw something, they will
draw what should they draw with the direction like that. When the student
have not understand the direction, we will repeat the direction”
“We do not directly correct them when the students do not understand our
direction. What usually we do is to stimulate them to aware their own mistake
and corrected by themselves”
In the interview transcription 4.16 the teacher stated her action when to ensure
that students understand about her long and complicated direction. The teacher asked
the students to do the direction. If the students were able to complete the direction, it
meant that they had already understood. In the other hand, when students could not
understand the direction, the teacher helped them by repeating the direction. In the
observation, the teacher even came closer to the student and repeated once again the
direction slowly so the students were able to comprehend the direction. This normal
happened in the young learner classroom, especially the passive and the younger
students needed to be helped by the teacher both in complete the task or comprehend
the teacher verbal behavior, in this case is teacher direction. Furthermore, the students
had to understand the direction first before they did the directed task or activities.
110
4.2.1.4.3 Criticizing or Justifying authority
The second variable in the teacher control pattern is criticizing or justifying
authority function. This variable as the less dominance variable compare to giving
direction variable. It is representing 28% or equal with 15 utterance from total
utterance found in 4 times observation. From the result, it can be see that the teacher
spent a little time in criticizing or justifying activity. As cited in Hai bee (2007),
Flanders assumed that teacher is the influential authority in the classroom, because
teacher’s talk and what he says determiners to large the reaction of the students.
Statement intends to change student behavior from non-acceptable to acceptable
behavior. The expressions used by the students and teacher are clearly shown in the
following excerpt.
Extract 4.19
S:”I want to spread more butter” (2/048)

T:”Could you please repeat your question?”
The situation was, a student expressed what she wanted to do. In extract 4.19,
the teacher cannot hear the students’ voice clearly. The result of observation showed
that student’s seat position was away from the teacher. In addition, the teacher was
busy to help others students to make sandwich. As soon after that, the teacher was
providing a justifying utterances. The teacher says “Could you please repeat your
question?” so that the teacher can listen once more to the student ideas. Michael
Long (2004) suggests that acquisition takes place best in a setting in which meaning
is negotiated through interaction. It was suggested to the teacher that early attention
must focus on providing student with the ability to communicate messages such as “I
111
don’t understand,” “Could you please repeat that?” “Could you please speak
louder?”
Extract 4.20
T: “It is ok if you want to take in the floor first. So it would not be disturbed
you because we need to do something with the paper”
S: “Yes” (4/047)
In the observation result the conversation in extract 4.20 occurred when the
teacher criticized the student’s behavior in class. The conversation was in end of the
discussion time, the teacher asked students to make space shuttle. The condition was
students had to put the colorful paper in a bottle, some of students were busy playing
with the bottle. To deal with those kind situation, the teacher asked them to take in
the floor first, in order to shift their attention on cutting the paper. Yanfen and Yuqin
(2010) stated “instruction means and authoritative direction to be obeyed”. In the
conversation, teacher told the students to do stop specific action. Since, teacher had
an authority to control over the interaction and class activity.
According to conversation in extract 4.19 up to 4.20, there were two conditions
or context when the teacher criticized student’s behavior. The first condition, when
the teacher wanted for students did something. In this case was to speak louder, the
purpose was to make sure student’s opinion clear enough to be listened by the teacher
and the others students. The example was in extract 4.29. The second condition was,
when the teacher criticize the student improper behavior. The goal was to bring
students back focus on the lesson.
The example was in extract 4.20. Finally, it indicated that criticizing was not
always negative. It can be positive also, to create comprehensible condition for

112
students to acquire target language. In classroom interaction the teacher usually
controls the topic and the amount of attention that each student receive and allocated
turns (Erickson, 2004). Sometimes sequence-closing of feedback (F) is not enough,
the teacher is able to provide kind of warning both in educating and controlling the
classroom.
The criticizing made the class became a supportive and comprehensible place
for the teaching and learning process. Since, the students were able to get input easily
from the teacher in form of critique and justification. A teacher had an authority to
give her students a positive or negative feedback depend on the students’ learning
performance. In the context of classroom relationship between the teacher and
students. It was common for the teacher being authority to control all aspects in class.
Finally, teacher responsibility was to control the interaction flowing smoothly and
efficiently.
“Usually we know that they understand my justification by observing their

behavior. For example in the class discussion there is certain student who busy
with her shoes, hair or book. As a teacher I will criticize her by saying “Leona,
are you want to play outside or listen to me? After that the student should stop
her activity and listen to the teacher. But if not I will give more action such as
ask her to play outside for 5 minutes
.
“The kindergarten students are considering old enough. In the beginning the
lesson we have already discusses the rule in the classroom. So when the student
act misbehavior during the class teacher will remind them about the rule”
From the interview transcription 4.18 and 4.19 above it can be seen that the
teacher criticizes a student in order to control the student behavior in class. According
113
to the teacher if there was a student did non-acceptable behavior. The teacher would
criticize them in several stages. The first stage was justify the student behavior by
questioning, the second stage was justify student’s behavior by giving option, keep
doing those behavior or go out the classroom. The last stage, asked them to go
outside the class for 5 minutes in order to give students time to think about their
mistake. The interesting finding about “punishment” was the teacher called back the
student to join the class and pretend nothing happened. The teacher said that after
students get the ‘punishment” they would realize their mistake. The point, in the
same time the teacher were able to control student non-acceptable behavior and the
teacher asked the student back to join the class without judging them as bad student.
The conclusion of teacher control pattern related to classroom interaction. The
teacher was the leader of the classroom. The teacher control the interaction but not
dominated the interaction. The teacher was as the one who kept the conversation on
the right topic. Finally, the teacher control all her utterances, students’ talk and
classroom engagement since the learner was still in young ages. The teachers’
guidance was still needed.
4.3 Types of Student talk and Teacher Interaction
The classroom interaction is seen as one of the primary aspect leading
successful teaching learning process. The interaction between teacher and student will
be go smoothly when teacher talk and student talk is completing each other to create
comprehensible input and produce meaningful output for the students. The table
below presents both teacher talk and student talk found in learning activities of
Ananda Mentari Kindergarten School Jogjakarta.

114
4.3.1 Indirect Talk and Direct Talk
Indirect talk was talk done by the teacher that giving indirect influence toward
the student’s performance. Indirect talks were used to encourage students to
participate actively during interaction. It meant the teacher allowed the students to be
active during the interaction. It can be called as student-centered model learning,
based on the four observations the teacher only gives little explanation about the
material only in presentation part. The students have discussion with their friend or
with the teacher in all part (presentation, discussion and exploration). The result of
indirect influence can be seen in the graph 4.9 below:
Percentage of Direct talk and Indirect

talk
Direct Talk
Indirect Talk
25%
75%
Direct Talk Indirect Talk
Graph 4.9 The results of Direct and Indirect Influence in Each Meeting
The result indicated that the proportion of indirect influence in classroom
interaction was lower than the direct influence. The amount of indirect talk (75%) or
62 utterances was lower than and direct talk influence (25%) or 184 utterances.
According to Brown (2007) he stated that direct teaching is that type of talk
which tended to minimize the freedom and variety of response that student can create
in classroom interaction. The result showed the direct talk is not high, it means that
the teacher leads students to give their opinion. It means, in direct teacher talk is
115
concerned on the teacher who dominated the interaction. The researcher found,
teacher spent little time to use direct talk. Since, the goal in Ananda Mentari is
communication and student enjoy the learning process.
In other hand, the finding indicated that indirect talk has higher percentage 75%
or 184 talk during the interaction. Brown (2007)” stated that indirect talk was type of
talk which tended to allow the student maximal freedom in giving verbal response”.
The pattern found in Ananda Mentari kindergarten school also indicated the students
had a significant better attitude in classroom. The reason was because the teacher
applied flexible patterns as mother and kids. The students free to express what they
thought about the topic discussed in class. It was kind of student-centered interaction,
the condition when teacher stimulate student by questioning and lecturing. After that
students usually had discussion with their friend and teacher.
The researcher found that students tended to initiate their respond before the
teacher asked them. This finding is in line to Hai & Bee (2006) finding, that indirect
talk were far more likely to provide flexibility of influence than were the direct. It can
be concluded that indirect talk were delivered by teacher encouraged the condition of
second language acquisition because indirect talk leaded the students to think
creatively. The term of creative here mean teacher keep in monitoring or controlling
of student utterances. The meaningful communication in this case, it was discussion
based on the topic and avoid inappropriate words for students.
It can be seen on the graph 4.9 about students’ talk and teachers’ ratio. It can be
seen that student talk ratio was 47% or 226 utterances. While the teachers’ talk ratio
about 50% or 236 utterances. In addition the graph also listed the ratio of silence or
116
confusion ratio was only 3%. It indicated that the ratio between the teacher talk and
student talk was not significantly different. It showed that the high amount of direct
teachers’ talks affects the amount of student talks. Moreover, from this result can be
seen that students were considered active in verbal communication. It can be seen
from amount of silence or confusion was low. The researcher found the student
suddenly silent when the teacher criticized their unappropriated behavior during the
learning process.
Teachers' Talk and Students' Talk Ratio

Silence or
confusion
3%Teacher Talk’s
Student Talk’s Teacher Talk’s
47% 50% Student Talk’s
Silence or confusion
Graph 4.10 Teachers’ Talk and Student Talk Ratio
Based on the teacher opinion in the interview, teacher did more asking
questions rather than others three type of talk (accepts feeling, encouragement and
use students’ ideas). In order to stimulate student active they were able to produce
target language. Because according to teacher, students will enjoy responding the
questions.
4.3.2 Types Classroom Interaction
Interaction in the classroom refers to the conversation between the teacher and
students, as well as among the students, in which active participation and learning
becomes crucial. According to Mercer and Dawes (2008) “conversation between and
117
among various parties in the classroom have been referred to as educational talk or
exploratory talk”. In other words, through educational talk in class students
constructed knowledge, obtain a much input and had opportunities to practice target
language. The school principal stated her understanding about young learner
classroom interaction. The following transcript shows head master’s opinion. She
said:
“In my opinion about interaction with young learner is the easiest way
compare if I have to interact with adults or someone older than my students.
Because they are genius in their own way and they accept everything that we
give”
The school principal stated her understanding about young learner classroom
interaction. According to her the students were smart in their own way. Since they
were still young so they easy absorb every information delivered by the teacher. Mrs.
Detty also stated the reason why the interaction have to be done in English. She said:
“It is because I believe English is the universal language that people have to
learn. If you don’t understand English at all they will get lost. Nowadays,
books, movies and different kind of information in TV, newspaper, internet.
80% or even more is available in English. If they want to explore and learn,
provide them with Indonesian movie or book will not be enough”
The school principle has a great reason to create school policy that interaction
should be done in English. In the similar time the students were able to learn English
and explored the contents with their own idea. The interactions were mostly dominated
by discussions (utterance) not in written expression. The school principle also gave her
concern about those situation of young learner. She said:

118
“We teach them to speak English in the class and they follow all the
direction. Because they 100% trust to the teacher, program and this
school”
The school principle also explained about the reason why English was easier
to learn for students. Teaching English to young learner was simpler, since they
would follow all the directions were given by teacher. According to Mercer (2000)
learner merely accepts what the teacher says ‘on trust’ because of lack of
understanding on their early age. It mean student would accept all the information
and direction from the teacher, since they have not knew before.
They absorb all the input from the teacher. Later, the directed practice what all
they got with the teacher and friends because the school have already created the
comprehensible atmosphere and facilitation to support student when students
produce the target language output.
Below the researcher shows the condition why students have not yet learn about
writing and reading skills.
“No, we are not supposed to give them writing because the regulation in
kindergarten. That is enough for me, my children have self-confidence to
talk to foreigner without any doubt in making mistake”
According to the school principle, a kindergarten students were not given
written because the kindergarten regulation. Their ages are still young, they learn
something because they want it. The school and teacher cannot force them to learn
how to write and read because they are not ready yet.
119
The interaction found in the classroom was discussed based on who started the
interaction and whom it was addressed. It also discussed about the condition why the
interaction happened. By using these categories, the interaction that found could be
seen more clearly. Although, in some cases, it was quite difficult to differentiate that
happened between the students Murtiningsih, S (2009). There are three categories:
1) Teacher- student interaction
2) Student- teacher interaction
3) Student – student interaction
4.3.2.1 Teacher-student interaction
The following discussion talked about the interaction happened between the
teacher and the student. The information was sent by the teacher and addressed to the
students. The teacher-student interactions were done in the beginning of the class and
the closing of the class. In the beginning of the class, the teacher greeted the students.
Extract 4.20
T: “Good morning friend, how are you today?”

S: “Good morning Miss Nining, I am fine thank you (3/001)
In conversation 4.20 teacher greeted students in the beginning of the class. The
purpose of those behaviors was to check student’s condition and to make sure that
students were ready to start the lesson on that day. Lyster, R. (2007) good
relationship between the teacher and student was important for student motivation
and their target language achievement. The teacher wanted to build a good
relationship with the students.

120
As the result, students felt comfortable to accept the input and produce the
language output. Since, the relation was not only the teacher and the student but also
“good” friend or partner. In addition, greeted the student’s also effective strategy to
get their attention since in the morning some of them were sleepy or busy with their
activity.
Extract 4.24
T: “I am going to choose who will go outside to make sandwich, to spread the

jam and cutting the bread”
S: “I want to eat it all” (2/038)
When the teacher was explaining what they would do in class, the teacher
informed the students about the today’s activity. The crucial of this conversation, the
teacher leaded the class activity so she had to explain the procedure for the student
clear and understandable. The researcher found that students interested toward the
teacher’s explanation because they used their own imagination to figure the activity
out. In the conversation, teacher succeeded to attract student interest. Finally, if the
teacher acted friendly towards the students, it was likely that the students act friendly
towards the teacher (Roorda, D. 2012). In addition the school principle also stated
about her expectation about how teacher lead the interaction. She said:
“Yes of course, the standard for every teacher here are they have to be able to
talk to the students as friend not as teacher”
This statement was in line with the teacher’s opinion that the position of
teacher and students should in the same level. The point was that the students were
121
not afraid to speak to their friend, even somehow students make mistakes when
express their opinion. The teacher as a moderator in the explanation time only.
4.3.2.2 Student-teacher interaction
This part also talked about the interaction that happened between the teacher
and the students. The information was send by the student to the teacher.
Extract 4.22
S:”Miss, can I take five fire papers?”

T:”Yes of course, Miss Nining will cut more papers (4/073)
The student asked for permission since she wanted to take paper. From the
conversation it can be seen that the relation between the teacher and students were
well-managed. It can be seen from the conversation, student was permitting the
teacher before she take a paper. The students were well-mannered because actually
the paper were near her, easy for her to take it without permission from the teacher.
Extract 4.23
S: “Miss, We cannot draw the entire map. The place is very secret”
T: “Don’t worry I will help you later to draw the map”(1/024)
When the students were doing the class activity, one of them initiate an opinion
about the map. Based on her opinion the map was difficult to draw since the place
was hidden in the map. The purpose of express her own feeling about activity was
responded nicely by the teacher. From the conversation, it described how verbal
behaviors of both the teacher and the student fit together and mutually adjust to each
other (Roorda, D. 2012). It can be seen that teacher took control of the students in
form of encouragement (solution), students usually tended to listen and went along
122
with the teacher. This was the important of student talk initiation, the teacher were
able to know what student need and how to give them solution. As the result, the
teaching learning process was going smooth and well managed. Since, the students
were also active in expressing their problems when they complete the task. According
to Walsh (2001) the IRF sequences in teacher-student interaction have power in the
language socialization in classroom interaction. Similarly, in Ananda Mentari context
the interaction in form of initiation talk from a student. It give comprehension chance
for the teacher to give them the respond and feedback. As the result, ongoing
interaction can be achieved the goal of communication.
The school principal stated her expectation toward students the way they
contribute during the interaction. She said:
“I don’t know the expectation. The think that I know is they come to school every
day and I want to see them happy. I want to see them learn every single day”
There is no certain expectation about student’s contribution during the
interaction. The important thing is the student enjoy the class and they learn
something new during school time. The school are not allowed to force them to
master certain skill. Since, the goal is the students are able to produce English without
any afraid of making mistakes.
4.3.2.3 Student-student interaction
Classes that have high interaction among students are more student-focused,
class provides multiple opportunities for student to discuss ideas in small groups
Inamullah, M (2007. In this case student-student interaction may significantly support

123
a whole class discussion. A simple indicator of this is the proportion of the class
discussion dedicated to students talking. The interaction was started by the student
and addressed to other students.
Extract 4.24
S:”Fian’s space shuttle is like people, it is tall”

S:”Ha ha maybe because it has long hair too”(4/055)
The students interacted with their friend too; even the proportion was not
significant enough. In the conversation 1.22 students initiate her opinion toward
fian’s space shuttle. They talked in English about something they have already done
or learn in class.
Extract 4.25
S: “You picked the wrong map. We can’t find the treasure”

S: “But we picked the yellow map together”
The interaction among the students was found when the student complained
about the map. The situation happened when group could not find the treasure box
because they picked the wrong map. In this case, a group member criticized about the
leader’s decisions. Topic the interaction was also important aspect handling the
students’ conversations in purposefully and meaningfully. It can be seen, students
were mostly communicate each other about things related to the topic. In other words,
they were able to keep focusing on the lesson instead of talking about other topic
which was not related to the lesson. For example, the interaction was well developed
since the student used English even in the case they talked about behavior which
during completing the activity. One group failed to finish the task, groups’ member
express her unpleased to the group leader by “You should pick the right map not the
124
wrong map”. The leader was feeling guilty since he was silent, as soon teacher
encouraged him by asking them to repeat the activity on the next meeting. It can be
concluded that interaction between student-student happened naturally but in this case
teacher controlled the whole interaction in classroom. The researcher found that the
student’s behavior were good. The school principle has an explanation about those
condition. She said:
“Once more, our philosophy we are not teacher but we are the parent. We
don’t force the children to know about everything. We provide them a lot
opportunities to explore their own idea. That is why in discussion time is
always lively”
The student-student interaction is going well since the student’s behavior is
well-mannered. According to the school principle teacher leads and educates them as
a mother not as teacher. In this case, the students are easy to control because they feel
that the teacher cares and loves them. As a mother teacher does not have such
requirement like a teacher. Furthermore, according to school principle the interactions
are going well since all those activities is based on the mother and childrem
philosophy.
4.4 Summary
This study is aimed to describe about the pattern of young learner classroom
interaction. From the result and discussion on the previous part, the practical finding
of this study was displayed as below.
The teacher was active to stimulate students during the discussion. The teacher
gave such comprehensible input in form of explanations, directions, and use student
125
ideas. In order to stimulate students became active. The teacher also delivered
question to check both students’ comprehension and explore their own idea or critical
thinking. The most frequent term was student talk initiation; students were freely to
initiate their opinion during the discussion. The students also did initiate exchanges
with the teacher and their friends by being contributed to express their opinion,
feelings, and personal experiences.
There is no correct or wrong answer because according to the teacher the point
was student active in expressing their idea. Student talk response was less frequent
happened in the discussion. The teacher avoided to give display questions which
required short/yes or no answer. In this case, teacher prefer to seek student’s critical
thinking instead of something they have already known in class.
In this students were active in practicing the language output by asking
questions or expressing their idea or opinion. The researcher also found that not all
students were active; there were passive students from younger ages. They usually
were afraid to speak up. The effective strategy used by the teacher was arranging the
student’s seat position. Furthermore, since there were only 15 students in one class,
teacher was able to give extra attention to the passive students. The teacher helped the
passive students by guide them to express their idea by giving clues. In addition, the
silence of student was very low portion, mostly they were silence because teacher
critique students’ behavior in class.
During the observation the researcher found there are two different purpose of
questioning. The first type related to the lesson discussion such as content, procedure,
explanation and opinion. The second type related to student’s behavior in class. For
126
example, teacher criticized students who shout in class, did not follow teachers’
instructions, played with their stuff and talked each other during the class. In this
class, students were good when teacher justify about their inappropriate behavior in
class. The students directly stop what they were doing and back to the class activity.
Teacher talk influence student’s language production both in quality and
quantity. In quality teacher talk help learners to find the correct answer. In quantity,
teacher talk encourage student to produce more talk. The more teacher asks questions
the more students would respond.

CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
The conclusion on this chapter summarize the whole study and it also gives
recommendations to the English education how to teach young learner. The
discussion in this chapter is arranged in three main parts, namely (1) conclusion and
(2) recommendation.
5.1 Conclusion
The analysis of classroom language has indicated that classroom learning is not
so much about the individual’s acquisition by only of knowledge. It is about learning
how to behave appropriately and how to read the context of the lesson use the right
kind of language (Mercer & Dawes, 2008). Based on the finding of this research, the
following conclusions are listed below.
The teaching and learning process are required not only the teacher’s talk but
also the student’s talk. In a young learner classroom interaction, the teacher deals
with particular the young learners characteristic. In this case, the teacher’s job is not
only to teach the students about content in target language but also to build the
student’s motivation. In purpose to be active participate in producing target language
based on their own critical thinking. The Student participation pattern is the most
dominantly happened. The proportion is (45.47%), it shows that students are active
enough to participate in classroom discussion. It indicated that the teacher has already
succeed to lead the interaction become active, comprehensible and meaningful.
127
128
Furthermore, it provides the comprehensible activities to support second language
acquisition (SLA) for young learner classroom. In this case, the teacher wants to
explore the students’ critical thinking. The result reflects, 47.2% from the total
classroom talk is devoted to the student’s talk, 49.5% is for the teacher talk and the
number of silence is low 3.3%. In other words, the interaction is not dominated by the
teacher since the frequency of the whole talk were not substantial different.
Additionally, the teacher is successful to promote students in producing target
language, it can be clearly seen from the number of silence.
The interaction in this this young learner classroom is in three-way
communication; there are interaction between the teacher-students, students-the
teacher, and students-students. Those kind of interaction have been done all in
English, even when students communicate each other’s using English. This would
seem to follow when interaction is not dominated by teacher-student only. The others
two interaction (student-teacher & student-student). It indicates that the teacher not
only gives the information (input) but also has a great tendency to stimulate the ideas
and motivations for students to learn new content, information and practice their
target language happily.
The results from the interview classroom teacher and school principal state that
there is no certain requirements for students to achieve the particular standard. It can
be concluded that they do not expect students to master or comprehend certain skill.
This study can help the teacher to be more aware and support their self-
sufficient. What is mean by self-sufficient is that teacher has compressible knowledge
to plan their talk. There are three basic knowledge: first, teachers are able to choose
129
the suitable talk based on the context and certain condition. Second, the teacher
knows how to help passive students. Third, the teacher are able to create and maintain
certain interaction pattern based on their requirement.
5.2 Recommendations
The results in this study have the significant implications for teachers as the
educators. The one who is expected to improve the quality of young learner
classroom interaction particularly in kindergarten level. In the interaction in a foreign
language, the teacher should provide comprehensible input to the students, the more
students received input the more they will produce the target language. The
researcher lists several recommendations for the school as the setting of this study.
First, the teacher can provide a well-structured and approachable verbal support
(productive talk) to all students. As the result, the teacher can give what are the
student’s needs. The use of the carefully planned small-group work provides a simple
and doable solution to increase the frequency of students-students interactions.
Furthermore, the teacher also gives the individual consultation time for passive
students in class. Somehow, the teacher can discover the solution when she talk to the
student individually after or before the class activity begin.
Third, it is better for the teacher to give longer time for the student to answer
the questions. As the observations result, sometimes the teacher is not patient enough
to wait student’s answer. The teacher directly, move to another students who are able
to answer quickly. In fact, the teacher will lose a chance to know what students want
to express is. Even the student faces difficulties to express their ideas through
English. The teacher is able to help the students by giving the encouragement.
130
Fourth, teacher talk is an important part of interaction. Pica, Doughty, & Young
(1990) say that what seems essential is not only merely that target language input be
present, but also that the learner understands it. In this case, it is better for the teacher
to be wise and creative to deliverer their language. Since the students have different
level of proficiency. This is the reason to evaluate the teacher talk whether
understandable enough for all students not only for high-level proficiency students.
Fifth, there are several ways to avoid a teacher-dominated and the passive
student will lack of chance. It is better for the teacher to re-arrange the activities
which can stimulate more in the classroom interaction such as brainstorming and the
problem solving, role play, the simulations and group work. Those activities help
students exchange information to achieve comprehensible input. They are
contributing in the meaningful experiences to acquire the target skills. Moreover,
applying, those kind of activities in the classroom, the teacher will be able to increase
the student’s motivation in participating and producing language output during
interaction both with the teacher and pairs.
Finally, the researcher hope that this study gives the practical contribution to
the understanding of interaction pattern in TEYL classroom particularly in English
learning. Furthermore, it gives benefits to teacher, kindergarten students as participant
and the reader of this research.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Allwright, D., & Bailey,K.M. (1991) Focus on the language classroom: An

Introduction to Classroom Research for Language Teacher. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Astuti,Windy,.I. (2010). The meaning of teaching English large classes to a novice

teacher. Unpublished thesis. Yogyakarta: Sanata Dharma University.
Brewster J., Ellis G., & Girard D. (2004). The Primary English Teachers’ Guide
(New Edition). Penguin English Guided. Edinburg Gate: Pearson Education
Ltd.
Brown, H.D (2007) Teaching by Principles – An Interactive Approach to Language

Pedagogy (3rd Edition). London: Longman, Pearson Education Ltd.
Cameron, L. (2002). Teaching Language to Young Learners. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.
Cameron, L. (2008). Challenges for ELT from the expansion in teaching children.
ELT Journal, 57/2, pp.105-112
Cook, V. (2000) Second Language Learning and Language Teaching (2nd Edition).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cole, M & Cole, S. (2007). The Development of Children. 4th Ed. New York:
Scientific American Books. Distributed by W.N. Freeman and Company.
Coulthard, M (1985). An introduction to discourse analysis (2nd ed). Pearson

Education Ltd
Cresswell, J. W. (2007) Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design (2nd Edition):

Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage
Publication Inc.
Daniels, H. (2002) Vygotsky and Pedagogy. New York: Rutledge/Falmer.
Ellis, R. (2003) Second Language Acquisition (9th Edition). London: Oxford

University Press.
Ellis, R. (2008).The Study of Second Language Acquisition (2nd Edition). London:

Oxford University Press.
131
132
Erickson, F. (2004). Talk and Social theory. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Flanders, N. (1970) Analysis Teaching Behavior. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Fleta, M.T. (2005) The role of interaction in the young learners’ classroom.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Completes University. Madrid.
Hai SK, Bee LS.(2006). Effectiveness of interaction analysis feedback on verbal

behavior of primary school teachers. October 17th 2015. Retrieved from
https://sgliput.wordpress.com/2016
Harmer, J. (2000). How to teach English. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and
Research Press.
Hartanto, S. (2010). Teacher perception of classroom talk in English learning at

Vocational School. Unpublished thesis Yogyakarta: Sanata Dharma
University.
Hu, Q. Q., Nicholson, E., & Chen, W. (2004). An investigation and analysis of
questioning pattern of college English teacher. Foreign Language World, 6,
22-27. February 8 2016. Retrieved from
www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ijel/article/viewFile/20965/13699
Inamullah, M (2007). Patterns of classroom interaction at different education level in

the light of flander’s interaction analysis. Pakistan: Pakistan University
Press. January 16 2016. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/40172016
Krashen, S. D (1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implication. London:

Longman.
Lyster, R. (2007). Learning and Teaching Language through Content: a

counterbalanced approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamin’s publishing
Company.
Long, M. (1996). The Role of Linguistic Environment Second Language Acquisition.

Handbook of Research on Second Language Acquisition. New York:
Academic.
Makasau, R (2015). Adjacency Pairs in Teacher- Student Interaction in English Day

Program at Mutiara Persada Elementary School Yogyakarta. Final Project.
Unpublished thesis. Jogjakarta. Sanata Dharma University Press.
133
Mercer, N.,& Dawes, L., (2008). The value of exploratory talk. In N, Mercer, & S.
Hodgkinson (Eds), Exploring talk in school. London: Sage
Murtiningrum, S. (2009). Classroom Interaction in English Learning. Unpublished

Thesis. Yogyakarta: Sanata Dharma University.
Nunan, D. (1991). Language Teaching Methodology: A Text book for Teachers.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Inc.
Nurmasita,S. (2010). Classroom Interaction and the Effectiveness of Teaching

Learning English as a Local Content Subject at Elementary School. Final
Project. Semarang State University.
Pinter, Anamaria. (2006). Teaching Young Language Learners. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.
Rashidi, Nasser. (2010). Analyzing Pattern of Classroom Interaction in EFL

Classroom in Iran. The Journal of Asia TEFL. Shiraz University.
Richard, J.C.(1992) Reflective Teaching in Second Language Classroom. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.
Roorda,D.L. (2012). Teacher-child relationship and interaction process: Effects on

students’ learning behavior and reciprocal influences between teacher and
child. Ede, The Netherlands: GVO drunkkers & vormagevers B.V.
Roseberg,C.R,& Silva, M.L. (2009). Teacher-children interaction and concept

development in kindergarten Discourse Processes, 46,572-591. March 12
2016. Retrieved from www.jstor.org.
SK Hai & LS. Bee (2006). Study of Teacher-Student Interaction in Teaching Process
and its Relation with Students Achievement in Primary Schools. Malaysia.
The Social Sciences.
Sinclair,J., & Coulthard, M. (1992). Toward an Analyaia of Discourse. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.
Suherdi, D. (2009). Classroom Discourse Analysis: A systemic Approach. Bandung:

Celtics Press. April 9 2016. Retrieved from journal.upi.edu/index.php/L-
E/article/download/318/208
Tichapondwa,S.M. 2006). Interactive communication and the teaching-learning

process. Gweru:Mambo Press.
Tsui, A.BM. (1989). Beyond the Adjacency Pair. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
134
Van Lier, L. (1988). The Classroom and the Language Learner. London: Longman
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978).Mind in Society. London: Harvard University Press.
Wan. M. (2013). A study of Teacher Talk in Elementary School English Class.

Unpublished thesis .Yogyakarta. Sanata Dharma University
Walsh, S. (2011). Construction or obstruction: Teacher talk and learner involvement

in the EFL classroom. Language Teaching Research
Walsh, S. (2012). Conceptualizing classroom interaction competence: Language in

action. New York: Rout ledge
Yanfen, L. & Yuqin, Z. (2000). A Study of Teacher Talk in English Classes. Chinese
Journal of Applied Linguistic, Vol.33 no 2, pp.76-86. January 23 2016. Retrieved
from www.celea.org.
Zhang, H. (2009). Moving out of IRF (Initiation-Response-Feedback):A single case

analysis. Language Learning Research Club. University of Michigan. June
14 2016. Retrieved from www.tc.columbia.edu/faculty/tesolal/Warin
Zhou, X., & Zhou, Y. (2010). An investigation and analysis of teacher talk of college
English teacher. Foreign Language Teaching and Research.
APPENDIX
135
136
Appendix 1: Matrix of Flanders Interaction Analysis in four meetings

137
138
Appendix 2: The Overall Result of Classroom Interaction

1. Content Cross Pattern
No Meeting Content Cross Percentage

1 First 29 30.53%
2 Second 30 25%
3 Third 41 28%
4 Fourth 29 21.6%
2. Teacher Control Pattern
No Meeting Teacher Control Percentage

1 First 12 12.63%
2 Second 17 14.16%
3 Third 9 6.2%
4 Fourth 19 14%
3. Teacher Support Pattern
No Meeting Teacher Support Percentage

1 First 11 11.57%
2 Second 14 11.66%
3 Third 10 6.8%
4 Fourth 25 18.4%
4. Student Participation Pattern
No Meeting Student Participation Percentage

1 First 39 41.05%
2 Second 55 45.85%
3 Third 60 41%
4 Fourth 72 54%
139
Appendix 3: The Comparison of teacher talk and student talk
No Meeting Teacher Talk Student Talk Silence

Quantity % Quantity % Quantity %
1 First 52 53% 39 41.5% 6 5.5%
2 Second 59 49.5% 55 47% 4 3.5%
3 Third 62 51.5% 60 47% 2 1.5%
4 Fourth 63 54% 72 53.2% 4 2.8%
478
Total 236 49.5% 226 47.2% 16 3.3%
140
Appendix 4: Blueprint Observation Protocol
Thesis title : A Study of Classroom Interaction in Teaching Process

Using Flanders Interaction Analysis System at Ananda
Mentari Kindergarthen School.
Research Questions : 1. what are the predominant patterns of classroom
interaction between teachers and students in young learner
classroom interaction at Ananda Mentari Kindergarten School
Yogyakarta?
2. How did the interactions happened in teaching learning at
Ananda Mentari Kindergarten School Yogyakarta?
Research Goal : 1. To find out the interaction pattern during classroom
interaction at Ananda Mentari Kindergarten School
Yogyakarta.
2. To find out whether the interaction was teacher-dominated
or student-dominated.
3. To discover how interactions are happen in the classroom
at Ananda Mentari Kindergarten School Yogyakarta.
Observation guide adapted from Matrix of Flander Interaction Analysis. (1970 cited
in Hai and Bee 2006).
No. Flander’s Interaction Analysis Categories (FIAC)
Teacher Talk Coding

141
A. Indirect Talk
1. Accept Feelings
 In this category, teacher accepts the feeling of the (Acpt.)

students.
 He feels himself that the students should not be
punished for exhibiting his feelings.
 Feelings may be positive or negative
2. Praise or Encouragement
 Teacher praises or encourages student action or (Pra.)

behavior.
 When a student gives answer to the question asked by
the teacher, the teacher gives positives reinforcement
by saying word like ‘good’, ‘very good’, ‘better’,
‘correct’, excellent’, ‘carry on’.
3. Accepts or Uses ideas of Students
 If a student passes on some suggestion, then the (ideas)

teacher may repeat in nutshell in his own style or
words.
 The teacher can say ‘I understand what you mean’.
Or the teacher clarifies builds or develops ideas or
suggestion given by a student.
4. Asking Questions
 Asking question about content or procedures, based (Ask.Quest.)

on the teacher ideas and expecting an answer from
the students.
 Sometimes, teacher asks the question but he carries
on his lecture without receiving any answer.
B Direct Talk
5 Lecturing/Lecture (Lect.)
 Giving facts or opinion about content or procedure
expression of his own ideas, giving his own explanation,
citing an authority other than students, or asking
rhetorical questions.
6 Giving Direction
142
 The teacher gives directions, commands or orders or

initiation with which a students is expected to comply
with: (Giv.Dirct.)
 Open your books
 Stand up on the benches
 Solve 4th sun of exercise
7 Criticizing or Justifying Authority
 When the teachers asks the students not to interrupt (Crt.)

with foolish questions, then this behavior is included
in this category.
 Teachers ask ‘what’ and ‘why’ to the students also
come under this category.
 Statements intended to change student behavior from
unexpected to acceptable pattern.
 Stating why the teacher is doing what he is doing
Student Talk
8 Student Talk Response

It included the students talk in responses to teacher’s Response
talk
 Teacher asks question, student gives answer to the
question.
9 Student Talk Initiation
 Talk by students talk in response to teacher’s talk Initiate

Expressing own ideas; initiating a new topic;
freedom to develop opinion and line of though like
asking thoughtful questions; going beyond the
existing structure.
10 Silence or Pause or Confusion Silence
 Pauses, short periods of silence and period of
confusion in which communication cannot be
understood by the observer.
143
Appendix 5: Observational Protocol Result of First Meeting

Table: Matrix of Flander Interaction Analysis. (1970 cited in Hai and Bee 2006).
Day/Date : Tuesday, December 15th 2015 Time : 2x 30 minutes
Teacher’s Name : Miss Nining Number of student : 15 students (6 boys and 9 girsl)
Topic : Treasure box Place : Kindergarten B
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total
Teacher Accepts feelings 1 IIIII 5
indirect Praise or
talk
2 IIIII I 6
encouragement
Accepts or uses ideas 3
of students
Teacher Asking questions 4 IIIII IIIII 17
direct IIIII
talk Lecturing/lecture IIIII IIIII II
5 12
Giving direction 6 IIIII IIIII 10
Criticizing or 7 II 2
Student Student talk 8 IIIII IIIII 23
talk response IIIII IIIII
response III
Student talk 9 IIIII IIIII 14

IIIII I
initiation
Silence or pause 10 IIIII 6
or confusion I
Tota 5 6 15 12 10 2 23 16 6 95
l
144
The Distribution of Teacher Talk and Student Talk and transcription teacher-student
interaction
Ratio Formula Score
1. Teacher Talk Ratio/ Percentage TT = 52 x 100 : 95 = 54%

of Teacher Talk (TT)
2. Indirect Teacher Talk Ratio ITT = 28 x 100:95 = 29%

(ITT)
DTT = 24x100:95 = 25%

3. Direct Teacher Talk Ratio
(DTT)
4. Students’ Talk Ratio/ Percentage PT = 39 x 100 : 95 = 41%

of Students Talk (PT)
5. Silence or Confusion Ratio (SC) SC = 6 x 100 :95= 6,5%
6. Indirect and Direct Ratio (I/D) 28/24 x 100= 116%

145
Extr Conversation Context of Teacher Coding Student

act situation Talk Talk
001 T : “Ok, Good morning friends” Teacher greets student Accepting (Acpt.) Response
(1) S : “Good morning, Miss Nining” while starting the
teaching activity.
002 T: “How are you today, friends?” Teacher addressing to Asks (Ask.Quest. Response
(1) all students in the questions )
S: I am fine Miss, Thank you. classroom
003 T: “Who knows what we will do today?” Teacher asks the Asks (Ask.Quest. Initiate
(1) S: “I know miss, to find the pirate miss” student about today’s questions )
activity
004 T: Raise your hand please, I cannot hear you. Teacher gives the Criticizing (Crt.) Initiate
(1) S: (all student shout) “find the treasure in the information about what or justifying
sea miss” will they learn.
T: “Miss Nining cannot hear you, all of you
said find a treasure, find treasure. Let listen to
Caca “what we will do caca?”
S : “We will find a treasure, Miss”
146
005 T : “So we will play treasure hunt” Teacher informs the Lecturing (Lect.) Response
name of game that will
(1)
S : (students clap their hand) “Yewwwww” be play for today.
006 T: “Are you ready to be a pirate today. Later, Teacher explains aboit Lecturing (Lect.) Silence
(1)
we will find the treasure box here on your the rule of the ‘treasure
group. Before you find the treasure, you will hunt’ game to the
have a map from your friend to find the students.
treasure box. So before you find the treasure
each group will make the map first.
S: ….. (students are listening to the teacher)

007 S: “Now…are you ready to do the game?” Encourage the students Lecturing (Lect.) Response
(1)
(rhetorical question) to be ready for the
game.
T: “Yes Yes…. “
008 T : “I will divide you into 3 group, Kakak Rula Teacher mentions the Giving (Giv.Dirct.)
(1)
stand up over there, Kakak Fian stand up there name that later become direction
and Elsi stand up beside kak Rula” one group.
147
S: (students do the teacher instruction to make

a group)
009 S : “Me me I want with Muel, Miss” Teacher command the Accepts (Acpt.) Initiate
(1)
student to wait till she Feeling
T : “please wait Shifa, I will call you after this” calls students’ name
010 T: “Vio, where are you going? follow your Teacher asks the Asks (Ask.Quest. Initiate
(1)
group” student to join his questions )
group.
S : “I am confuse which my group is, Miss”
011 T: “everyone stand with your group?” Teacher want to make Lecturing (Lect.) Silence
(1)
sure that students on
S : (student silent) their right group.
012 T: “Are you ready, Kids? Everyone is excited to Lecturing (Lect.) Response
(1)
do the game
S: “Yes….”
013 T: “Remember this is your group, so make sure Teacher gives direction Giving (Giv.Dirct.) Response
(1)
the leader will take care of the group member to the group members. direction
and before we play the treasure hunt. First, we
will hide the treasure box”
148
S : (shouting) “Wowwwww”
014 T: “One teacher will company in every group, Every group will have a Giving (Giv.Dirct.) Silence
(1)
so you will find the secret place to hide the teacher as a guide to go direction
treasure box. And after that you will go back to their “secret place’
here and you will make the map to find the and help them to draw
treasure box” the map.
S : (students are listening)
015 T: “Is that clear, friends?” Asks (Ask.Quest. Response
(1)
questions )
S : “Yes’s, Miss”
016 T: “Then, Who will go first?” Asks (Ask.Quest. Initiate
(1)
S: “ Mine, Mine miss, group 2” questions )
T : “Ok, You go first Fika’s group”
017 T : “Go follow your group leader, friends” Giving (Giv.Dirct.)
(1)
S: (follow their leader) direction
018 T : “Peter, you are the leader so please take Giving (Giv.Dirct.) Response
(1)
care your group member” direction
S : “Of course, miss”
019 T: “Hafi, can you make a circle, Sit down Accepts (Acpt.) Response
(1)
149
please” Feeling
S: “Ok, Miss”
020 T : “Evan, please sit near Jhon” Accepts (Acpt.) Response
(1)
S : “Yes,Miss” Feeling
021 T : “Thank you, very good” Praising or (Pra.)
(1)
S: ……….. Encouragin
g
022 T: “Kiel will draw the map for us” Giving (Giv.Direct. Initiate
(1)
S : “Kiel Miss, he is good on drawing” direction )
023 S: “When we start drawing, Miss?” Lecturing (Lect.) Initiat

(1)
T : “ wait until other group come after hide the e
treasure”
024 S: “Miss, We cannot draw all the map. The Praising or (Pra.) Initiate
(1)
place is very secret” Encouragin
T : “Don’t worry I will help you later to draw g
the map”
025 T : “Please don’t draw something are not Criticizing (Crt.) Initiate
(1)
150
important, please follow your leader instruction

or Miss Nining rules”
S: “why we should follow Ruel, Miss?”
T: “Because we will not make a wrong map,
right?
026 S : “Miss, Evan bites my hand” Accepts (Acpt.) Initiate
(1)
T: “Evan, why did you do that? Do you want Feeling
Qiqi bites you too?
T: “You have to answer the question. It is ok I
am not angry. But tell me why first”
S : “ He takes my pen and he will not return it”
027 T: “Where is Aslan?” Asks (Ask.Quest. Response
(1)
S : “He goes to toilet, Miss” questions )
028 T: “Do you remember where the place is?” Lecturing (Lect.) Response
(1)
S : “In the park”
T : “stttsssssss other group will know it, keep it
secret”
029 T : “ Excuse me hello, clap one” Lecturing (Lect.)
(1)
S : (clap their hand, listen to the teacher)
151
030 T: “Have you hidden you treasure in your Asks (Ask.Quest. Response
(1)
secret place?” questions )
S : (together) “Yess”
031 T : “Now we will make the map, but you tell Giving (Giv.Dirct.) Initiate
(1)
your friend where is your treasure box through Direction
spoken: My treasure is over there”
S : “No, it is become easy to find”
032 T: “Tomorrow you will have another treasure Lecturing (Lect.) Response
(1)
hunt, of course the different treasure hunt. So
make sure you come for tomorrow”
S : “Yew, can’t wait for tomorrow”
033 T: “Are you ready?” Asks (Ask.Quest. Response
(1)
S : “Yes Miss” questions )
034 T : “You can start now” Lecturing (Lect.)
(1)
S : (drawing)
035 T : “You can draw the sign, anything that you Giving (Giv.Dirct.)
(1)
passed when you hide the treasure box” Direction
036 S : “ Miss, I found the treasure near Miss Praising (Pra.) Initiate
(1)
Detty’s Office”
152
T : “ Good Job, Kayla”

037 T: “Who is the first group?” Asks (Ask.Quest. Response
(1)
S : “Peter” questions )
038 T: “The first group what is inside your treasure Asks (Ask.Quest. Response
(1)
box?” questions )
S : “ Poison”
T: “Poison? It is contain a poison?”
S : “Yes, stinky and disgusting”
039 T: “You are not lucky, You can try it again The student seem gave Encouragin (Pra.) Response
(1)
tomorrow. Don’t be sad” up since she failed to g or
S : “Yes, we want to try more” find the treasure, Praising
teacher try to encourage
her to try again
tomorrow.
040 T: “Do you follow the map? Did the map is Asks (Ask.Quest. Response
(1)
correct or not?” questions )
S : “Correct”
041 T : “Congratulation for 1st group” Encouragin (Pra.) Response
(1)
S : “Yew” g or
153
Praising
042 T: “How about the 2nd group. Is it difficult of Asks (Ask.Quest. Initiate
(1)
easy to find the treasure?’ questions )
S : “Difficult, the map we follow is wrong”
043 T : “Everyone please listen to Aska” Giving (Giv.Dirct.) Initiate
(1)
S : “ The treasure is under the table” Direction
044 T : “So is the map right or wrong?” Asks (Ask.Quest. Response

(1)
S : “Wrong” questions )
045 T: “How about 3rd group, is that easy or Asks (Ask.Quest. Response
(1)
difficult?” questions )
S : “little bit difficult”
T: “Did you do together or not?
S : “Yes”
046 T:”Jiza Elzi did you do together or not?” Asks (Ask.Quest. Silence
(1)
S : (silence) questions )
047 T: “The 3rd group did not did together. For Lecturing (Lect.) Response
(1)
154
tomorrow we will change the leader”

S : “Yes, he was wrong, Miss”
048 T: “ok friends, are you hungry? Asks (Ask.Quest. Response
(1)
S : “Yes, we are hungry” questions )
049 T:”Lets pray for our lunch break”.Are you Asks (Ask.Quest. Response
(1)
ready to pray?” questions )
S : “Yes, we are ready”
050 T : “Put your hand and close your eyes” Giving (Giv.Dirct.)
(1)
S : (students pray) Direction
051 T : “Lets listen and repeat after Aska” Giving (Giv.Dirct.) Response
(1)
S : (listening and repeating) Direction
052 T : “Girls go first, and boys follow after that” Giving (Giv.Dirct.)
(1)
S : (going out to have lunch) Direction
155
Appendix 6: Observational Protocol Result of Second Meeting

Table: Matrix of Flander Interaction Analysis. (1970 cited in Hai and Bee 2006).
Day/Date : Friday, February 12th 2016 Time : 2x 30 minutes

Teacher’s Name : Miss Nining Number of student : 15 (6 boys and 9 girsl)
Topic : Camping Place : Kindergarten A
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total
Teacher Accepts feelings 1 III 5
indirect Praise or IIIII
talk
2 6
encouragement
Accepts or uses 3 III 3
ideas of students
direct IIIII IIIII
talk Lecturing/lecture 5 IIIII IIIII 10
Giving direction 6 IIIII IIII 10
Criticizing or 7 IIIII II 7
response IIIII II
Student talk 9 IIIII IIIII 31
initiation
IIIII IIIII
IIIII IIIII
Silence or pause or 10 IIII 4
confusion
To 5 6 3 20 10 10 7 24 31 4 120
tal
156
interaction
Ratio Formula Score
2. Indirect Teacher Talk Ratio ITT = 34X100:120 = 28%

(ITT)
DTT = 27x100:120 = 22%

(DTT)
4. Students’ Talk Ratio/ Percentage PT = 55 X 100 : 120 = 49%

5. Silence or Confusion Ratio (SC) SC = 4 X 100:120= 3%
6. Indirect and Direct Ratio (I/D) 34/27x100= 125%

157

001 T: “Good morning friend, How are you today?” Teacher greets student Accepting (Acpt.) Response
(2) S: “Good morning Miss Nining, I am fine while starting the
thank you” teaching activity.
002 T: “Are you ready for something, surprised?” Teacher addressing to Asks (Ask.Ques Response
(2) all students in the questions t.)
S: “Wow, we are ready Miss” classroom
003 T: “Did you check the weather outside, just a Teacher asks the Asks (Ask.Ques Initiate
(2) moment ago. It is rainy or sunny?” student about today’s questions t.)
S: “Sunny, the sun is very bright” activity
004 T: “Do you see little rain or cloudy sky Teacher gives the Asks (Ask.Ques Initiate
(2) outside?” information about what questions t.)
S: “No, it is sunny already” will they learn.
005 T: “Next we will have camping” Accepting (Acpt.) Response
(2) S: “Yewwwww..It must be fun”
006 T: “Are you happy with that?” Teacher make sure that Accepting (Acpt.) Response
(2) S: “Sure, I am very happy ” students are interesting
to the topic.
158
007 T: “Do you want to sing Mr sun?” Asks (Ask.Ques Response

(2) S: “Yes, I like Mr Sun” (shouting to the questions t.)
teacher)
008 T: “Listen to the video, please” Students are shout each Giving (Giv.Dirct. Silence
(2) S: “…….” (silent) other’s, teacher tried to direction )
remain them.
009 T: “Did you watch kakak kakak in the movie, Asks (Ask.Ques Response
(2) what are they wearing?” questions t.)
S: “They are wearing jacket, trouser and hat”
010 T: “Are they wearing raincoat?” Asks (Ask.Ques Response
(2) S: “No” questions t.)
011 T: “Are they wearing coat?” Asks (Ask.Ques Response
(2) S: “No, they are wearing a t-shirt” questions t.)
012 S: “They are wearing glass” Criticizing (Crt.) Initiate
(2) T: “I can’t hear you clearly, can you just repeat or
it once more?” justifying
013 S: “ short pant and skirt ” Praising or (Pra.) Initiate
(2) T: “Yes, you right Sara” Encouragin
g
159
014 T: “Are they wearing boots?” Asks (Ask.Ques Initiate

(2) S: “No, they wear yellow sandals. We wear questions t.)
boot in rainy day”
015 T: “Yes, correct. In the video they are having Lecturing (Lect.) Silence
(2) summer and they are wanting a sun”
S: “oooooo” (listening)
016 T: “We are going camping after this” Lecturing (Lect.) Response
(2) S: “Yew, I like camping”
017 T: “Where is this” Teacher showing the Asks (Ask.Ques Initiate
(2) S: “In the river, in the lake, near the beach” picture of camping questions t.)
ground
018 T: “When we are going to camping. What we Asks (Ask.Ques Initiate
(2) should need?” questions t.)
S: “tend, with blue color miss”
019 T: “What else’s?” Asks (Ask.Ques Initiate
(2) S: “a bad, a jacket, backpack ” questions t.)
020 T: “Look, how about this?” Asks (Ask.Ques Initiate
(2) S: “Fire, Fire is hot miss it is dangerous ” questions t.)
021 T: “It is night or day time?” Asks (Ask.Ques Response
160
(2) S: “Night” questions t.)

022 T: “They are camping at night. What are they The teacher try to Lecturing (Lect.) Silence
(2) doing?” explain the condition
S: “…..” (silent) based on the videos.
T : “They burn some fireworks, and make Since the student are
themselves warm during the night” seem confuse.
023 T: “The last is this. What are they doing?” Asks (Ask.Ques Initiate
(2) S: “They are playing inside the comfortable questions t.)
tend miss”
024 T: “What we can do while we are having Lecturing (Lect.) Initiate
(2) camping?”
S: “playing guitar, eat and sleep”
025 T: “Excellent, Nathan, we can also can make a Teacher praises Praising or (Pra.) Initiate
(2) fire to burn a marshmallow” students about his Encouragin
S: “Wow marshmallow I have some in my experience about how g
home” to cook a mars mellow
by saying “excellent”
026 S: “I have ever tried the marshmallow and the The teacher agreed with Uses ideas (ideas) Response
(2) color is colorful I also like the taste” students’ opinion about of Students
161
T: “I agree with you Nathan, the taste is good” marshmallow

027 T: “Do you like marshmallow?” Asks (Ask.Ques Response
(2) S: “Yes” questions t.)
028 T: “Later we will try to eat marshmallow” Lecturing (Lect.) Response
(2) S: “Wow. I like marshmallow ”
029 T: “We have also have sandwich, that we can Teacher informs the Giving (Giv.Direc Response
(2) make it outside after this. We will try to spread student about what they direction t.)
the bread with strawberry jam and butter. Later should to step by step to
you will cut the bread and slice it and spread make them understand.
the butter by yourself”
S: “Yes. I want to do it soon, Miss”
030 T: “After you have finished to make sandwich. Teacher gives Giving (Giv.Direc Response
(2) You will go outside to grill the bread. And we instruction. direction t.)
will have party”
S: “Yew...”
031 S: “Now, Let build a tent for us” Praising or (Pra.) Response
(2) T: “Good, we can build nice and comfortable Encouragin
tent” g
032 T: “Here we will build our own tent. I need Teacher and student Giving (Giv.Direc Response
162
(2) some boys to help me, Peter, Nathan, Elang together build up the direction t.)
and Stephen” tent
S: “Yes Miss”
033 T: “You need to tight the rope to this part. It Teacher gives Giving (Giv.Direc Response
(2) must be tight” instruction to the direction t.)
S: “Yes, we can do it” learner
034 T: “And then the girl please help to cover the Teacher asks the Giving (Giv.Direc Response
(2) rope” student to build the tent direction t.)
S: “Yes, Miss” too.
035 T: “Clap one please” Teacher try to get Criticizing (Crt.) Response
(2) S: “Yes” (clapping their hand) students’ attention or
before move to next justifying
activity.
036 T: “Now the tent is done. Do you want Asks (Ask.Ques Response
(2) something to eat?” questions t.)
S: “Yes”
037 T: “We are going to make sandwich ” Lecturing (Lect.) Response
(2) S: “Wow”
038 T: “I am going to choose who will go outside to Lecturing (Lect.) Response
163
(2) make sandwich, to spread the jam and cutting

the bread”
S: “I want to eat it all”
039 T: “You have to wash your hand first before Teacher distributes Giving (Giv.Direc Response
(2) touch the bread” hand sanitizer to the direction t.)
S: “Yes, Miss” students.
040 T: “Remember, I can’t eat the bread ” Teacher remain the Criticizing (Crt.) Initiate
(2) S: “Why Miss. I am hungry” student to follow the or
T:” Because we have to wait our friends” rules. justifying
041 T: “Come on spread the jam into the bread Giving (Giv.Direc Response
(2) nicely” direction t.)
S: “Miss I want to eat it”
042 T: “What the color of jam friend?” Asks (Ask.Ques Initiate
(2) S: “Red strawberry jam” questions t.)
043 S: “Miss, Leona eat the bread” Criticizing (Crt.) Initiate

(2) T: “don’t Fiona please wait other friends” or
justifying
044 T: “We have to be fast” Accepting (Acpt.) Initiate
164
(2) S: “I am done Miss”

045 T: “Finished Miss” Giving (Giv.Direc Initiate
(2) S: “Wait down there” direction t.)
046 T: “Miss I am done” Praising or (Pra.) Initiate

(2) S: “Good, Kayla” Encouragin
g
047 T: “Miss the taste of butter is salty I don’t like Giving (Giv.Direc Initiate
(2) it” direction t.)
S: “spread it with strawberry jam and you will
like it”
048 T:”Ok, enough Kevin. Thank you. Go to the Teacher stops the Criticizing (Crt.) Initiate
(2) classroom.” activity have done by or
S: :”I want to spread more butter” student to move to next justifying
activity since student
get much excited.
049 T: “Who is the first eat marshmallow?” Asks (Ask.Ques Initiate
(2) S: “This my first time and like it much Miss” questions t.)
165
050 T: “You know, I like the burned part. It is very Lecturing (Lect.) Response
(2) yummy”
S: “I don’t like it”
051 T: “You don’t like it, so put in here then” Criticizing (Crt.) Initiate
(2) S: “The taste is strange” or
justifying
052 T: “Nafisa, why you don’t like it” Asks (Ask.Ques Initiate
(2) S: “It is too sweet and stinky Miss” questions t.)
053 T: “Wow I think Dika like marshmallow so Praising or (Pra.) Initiate

(2) much. You want more? ” Encouragin
S: “Yes Miss I want some more. I love g
marshmallow”
054 T: “After this maybe you will go to the Lecturing (Lect.) Initiate
(2) camping area, you can play in tent area, read a
book and play with your friend. You will
explore tent area. Nafisa and Peter will plays
guitar and other song a nice song”
S: “Yes, may I sleep there Miss”
166
055 T: “Are sure you don’t like marshmallow. Why?” Student don’t eat the Accepting (Acpt.) Silence
S: “….” (silent)
(2) marshmallow some of
T: “Is it too sweet for you? It is ok if you don’t like it at
them found difficult to
least you tried to eat marshmallow and how does it
taste.”
explain the reason.
056 T: “Jeje, don’t play with it. If you don’t like it put it here Teacher try to control Criticizing (Crt.) Silence
”
(2) student’s misbehavior or
S:”...” (silent)
justifying
057 T: “Later you will spread the jam on the bread we will Lecturing (Lect.) Initiate
toast the bread with the strawberry jam. Who likes it?”
(2)
S:”I want vanilla jam and chocolate jam I don’t like
strawberry the taste is sour”
058 T: “We don’t have vanilla jam. Numa what do Asks (Ask.Ques Initiate
(2) you like?” S:”Peanut” questions t.)
059 T: “Oke friends it that clear. Anyone knows what have to Asks (Ask.Quest.) Response
(2) do?” questions
S:”Yes Miss I understand”
167
Appendix 7: Observational Protocol Result of Third Meeting

Day/Date : Wednesday, February 17th 2016 Time : 2x 30 minutes
Teacher’s Name : Miss Nining Number of student : 15 students (6 boys and 9 girsl)
Topic : The Volcano Place : Kindergarten B
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total
Teacher Accepts feelings 1 III 3
indirect Praise or
talk
2 IIIII II II 7
encouragement
Accepts or uses 3 2
ideas of students
direct IIIII IIIII
talk Lecturing/lecture 5 IIIII IIIII 21
IIIII IIIII I
Giving direction 6 IIIII 5
Criticizing or 7 IIII 4
authority
response IIII
Student talk 9 IIIII IIIII IIIII 36
initiation IIIII IIIII IIIII
IIII I
Silence or pause 10 II 2
or confusion
Total 3 7 2 20 21 5 4 24 36 2 145
168
The Distribution of Teacher Talk and Student Talk and transcription teacher-student interaction
Ratio Formula Score
1. Teacher Talk Ratio/ Percentage TT = 62 x 100 : 145 = 42.75%
2. Indirect Teacher Talk Ratio ITT = 32 x 100 : 145 = 22%

(ITT)
DTT = 30 x 100 : 145 = 20.7%

3. Direct Teacher Talk Ratio (DTT)
4. Students’ Talk Ratio/ Percentage PT = 60 x 100 : 145 = 41.3%

5. Silence or Confusion Ratio (SC) SC = 2 x 100 : 145 = 1,5%

169

001 T: “Are you ready, friend?” Teacher greets student Accepting (Acpt.) Response
(3) S: “Yes, sure” while starting the
teaching activity.
002 T: “Fian, please don’t sit next to Nathan so you Teacher manage the Accepting (Acpt.) Response
(3) can’t see clearer” students’ position so
that they can easy to
S: “Yes, Miss” see the projector.
003 T: “Ok friend, this week we will learnt about natural Teacher asks the Asks (Ask.Quest.) Response
(3) disaster, and yesterday we have learnt about disaster student about today’s questions
that happened in the rain season. What are they?” activity
S: “storm, flood, landslide and ”
004 T: “So yesterday we learnt about storm, flood and Teacher gives the Lecturing (Lect.) Initiate
(3) land slide. And today we will learnt another disaster” information about
S: “It must be sad when we discuss about disaster what will they learn.
Miss”
005 T: “What picture is it” Teacher show the Asks (Ask.Quest.) Response
(3) S: “That is volcano” picture of volcano to questions
170
make students
understand.
006 T: “What do you think about volcano? Raise your Giving (Giv.Dirct.) Initiate
(3) hand first. Navisa please” direction
S: “The volcano is scary. The color is black. There is
smoke”
007 T: “And then Peter?” Asks (Ask.Quest.) Initiate
(3) S: “There is lava around the volcano. The lava is hot” questions
008 T: “Let see first one by one, look at the black smoke Asks (Ask.Quest.) Response
(3) here. What is wrong with the volcano?” questions
S: “The volcano is full of lava”
009 T: “Look here the volcano is erupting, the smoke out Lecturing (Lect.) Initiate
(3) and the color here is black. The smoke is hot”
S: “The smoke hot and black”
010 T: “Ya right. Just like people say this is the lava” Uses ideas (ideas) Response
(3) S: “Lava” of
Students
011 T: “Now look here. Do you think is this hot friend?” Asks (Ask.Quest.) Response
(3) S: “Yes. It is very hot. It is dangerous questions
171
012 T: “And beside of smoke and lava. Move down from Lecturing (Lect.) Initiate
(3) the volcano become like this. Because the volcano is
covered by lava ”
S: “I want wont to stay there. It is dangerous”
013 T: “What is that” Asks (Ask.Quest.) Response
(3) S: “A rock” questions
014 T: “Yes you are right, Bia. This is rock” Praising (Pra.) Initiate
(3) S: “A rock full of smoke” or
Encourag
ing
015 T: “When the volcano is erupting the material will go Lecturing (Lect.) Initiate
(3) out from the volcano. The first one is rock, smoke
and lava”
S: “Wah giant rock”
016 T: “So what are they material come out when Asks (Ask.Quest.) Response
(3) volcano is erupting?” questions
S: “Fire, lava, rock and giant stone”
017 T: “Look. The fire burn the tree around the volcano Asks (Ask.Quest.) Initiate
(3) here. Emm what do you think about the animal?” questions
172
S: “they will die”

018 T: “So when the volcano erupts the people around the Lecturing (Lect.) Initiate
(3) volcano here should be evacuated to the…...”
S: “Safety place far from volcano”
019 T: “The people have to move because of the Lecturing (Lect.) Initiate
(3) situation. It is very dangerous to keep stay there”
S: “The smoke of volcano also make us sick”
020 T: “That is very good, Fian” Fian is significantly Praising (Pra.) Response
(3) S: “Thank you, Miss” active so the teacher or
praised him. Encourag
ing
021 T: “Do know Merapi friend? The closest volcano Teacher explain the Lecturing (Lect.) Initiate
(3) from our place here is Merapi. This is when Merapi information to the
erupted couple years ago. Look at this people are student about Merapi
wearing musk because of volcano dust”
S: “My grand mama house is near from merapi”
022 T: “What is that Bia” Asks (Ask.Quest.) Response
(3) S: “That is the smoke of volcano and the dust” questions
023 T: “What do you mean? Usually the smoke come Criticizin (Crt.) Initiate
173
(3) together with the dust”. g or

S: “The smoke is stuck in our face” justifying
024 T: “Look at this. Look at this” Giving (Giv.Direct.) Response
(3) S: “motorcycle, dust and road full of dust ” direction
025 T: “Yes, miss Nining also agree with Navisa, this is Teacher agreed and re Uses ideas (ideas) Initiate
(3) the dust of volcano” state students’ idea of
S: “The place is dirty” toward picture given Students
by teacher.
026 T: “Yes Nafisa you want to tell something?” Criticizin (Crt.) Response
(3) S: “We have to go another place” g or
justifying
027 T: “Look at the dust here. The dust will cover Lecturing (Lect.) Response
(3) anything house and then look at this”
S: “They wear mask and jacket”
028 T: “Sometimes people wear umbrella and sun glasses Lecturing (Lect.) Initiate
(3) to protect the eyes”
S: “The color of glasses is black”
029 T: “What are they doing?” Asks (Ask.Quest.) Initiate
(3) S: “In a big room” questions
174
030 S: “No. That is evacuation room” Praising (Pra.) Initiate

(3) T: “Yes. That is right Shifa. Great”
031 T: “This shelter. Just like this” Lecturing (Lect.) Initiate
(3) S: “The safe one for the people”
032 T: “Look they are sleeping together here and they Lecturing (Lect.) Initiate
(3) will eat together while wait for better condition. Until
the volcano stop erupt and look”
S: “Oh my God. That place is covered by dust”
033 T: “The dust from the mountain will cover the tree, Lecturing (Lect.) Initiate
(3) plant and vegetable ”
S: “We can’t eat it”
034 T: “Look at this in the airport” Giving (Giv.Dirct.) Initiate
(3) S: “Wah that us City link plane” direction
035 T: “Do you think we can go by air plane in this Asks (Ask.Quest.) Initiate
(3) situation?” questions
S: “Because the dust covers the mirror and the road is
slipper ”
036 T: “The airport must be closed. The pilot can’t drive Lecturing (Lect.) Initiate
(3) the airplane”
175
S: “The people will stay at home”

037 T: “look here. The dust covers the vegetable, the tree Asks (Ask.Quest.) Initiate
(3) and the building. So what will happen next?” questions
S: “The rain will remove the dust”
038 T: “Yes right Noel. If there is no run the vegetable Praising (Pra.) Initiate
(3) will be died” or
S: “The rain must be hard. The rain will clean the Encourag
dust everywhere” ing
039 T: “So this all about volcano eruption” Lecturing (Lect.) Response
(3) S: “Volcano eruption ”
040 T: “Lets listen to Fiona. What are the material come Teacher ask the Asks (Ask.Quest.) Response
(3) out from the volcano when it is erupting?” student who seems questions
S: “rock, smoke, fire and lava” passive during the
discussion.
041 T: “What is happen to animal?” Asks (Ask.Quest.) Initiate
(3) S: “They will be burned” questions
042 T: “Because they are enough tree for animal to eat. Lecturing (Lect.) Initiate
(3) So the animal will die too”
S: “I will give them my food”
176
043 T: “What we will do when volcano erupted?” Asks (Ask.Quest.) Response

(3) S: “We move to the safety place” questions
044 T: “The smoke and the dust come out from the Teacher shared the Lecturing (Lect.) Initiate
(3) volcano may burn everything. But after a while when new knowledge to the
they stop after some weeks or some months. Actually student. In order to get
the dust is very good for people to plant vegetable the benefit from the
and fruit. They are very useful for planting because it volcano eruption
makes the soil fertile. That was the reason people
plant the vegetable and fruit in the high land, because
the soil there are very fertile ”
S: “Wow I like to plant fruit in my field”
045 T: “Do you know some sign when volcano will Asks (Ask.Quest.) Silence
(3) erupt? Do you know?” questions
S: “….” (silence)
046 T: “Sometimes earthquake will happen around the Lecturing (Lect.) Response
(3) volcano. We called it Volcano earthquake ”
S: “Volcano earthquake ”
047 T: “Because the lava inside the volcano. They want Teacher try to explain Lecturing (Lect.) Response
(3) to come out soon. The lava will push anything. It the process of volcano
177
make earthquake around the volcano. Usually the eruption. And the
weather become hot. That is why animal which live situation around the
around the mountain they have in ting so they will volcano.
move down to the cooler place ”
S: “The lava will come out”
048 T: “Where they will go?” Asks (Ask.Quest.) Initiate
(3) S: “Artic ” questions
049 T: “Artic? No that is too far” Give the clarification Criticizin (Crt.) Initiate
(3) S: “To the village” to the student’s g or
answer. justifying
050 T: “Miss Nining life in the high land here near the Teacher shared her Lecturing (Lect.) Initiate
(3) Merapi Mountain. What was happen not only own experiences to
earthquake but also the sound of Merapi. The sound the students.
was very loud. That is why I have to move to safety
place left the house. It took many weeks for us to
clean the house it was very dirty”
S: “Yack dirty house”
051 S: “I think desert is the safe place” Criticizin (Crt.) Initiate
(3) T: “That is too far, Peter” g or
178
justifying
052 T: “What is the sound of animal in the mountain Asks (Ask.Quest.) Response
(3) ?” questions
S: “kukuk kukukuk ”
053 T: “When they volcano erupted the dust come out we Lecturing (Lect.) Initiate
(3) need to wear mask. I have musk for us to use. I will
give you one by one”
S: “I want the blue one”
054 S: “Miss, I don’t know how to use it” Praising (Pra.) Initiate
(3) S: “Don’t worry. Miss Nining will help you” or
Encourag
ing
055 T: “We will put our mask like this. The green one Teacher give the Giving (Giv.Direct.) Initiate
(3) should be outside and the white one is inside. Let’s instruction how to use direction
us put on to cover our nose and month from the dust mask.
when we are breathing”
S: “The mask is too big Miss”
056 T: “It is free for us” Praising (Pra.) Response
(3) S: “Thank you Miss” or
179
Encourag
ing
057 T: “Please sit down nicely friend” Giving (Giv.Direct.) Initiate
(3) S: “I lost my mask, help me” direction
058 T: “Don’t worry Shila I will give you the new one” Praising (Pra.) Response
(3) S: “Thank you Miss” or
Encourag
ing
059 T: “How do you feel when earthquake happened?” Asks (Ask.Quest.) Initiate
(3) S: “Scared” questions
060 T: “Why are you smiling Peter? When it is really happen you Accepting (Acpt.) Silence
don’t have time to smile because it is so scared”
(3)
S: “…..” (silence)
061 T: “How many people will hide under this table?” Asks (Ask.Quest.) Response
(3) S: “one or two” questions
062 T: “The others can line up on the wall and follow the Lecturing (Lect.) Initiate
(3) sign. Usually the sign will teach you to find the
closest exit door. So it makes you easy to get out”
S: “We have to run”
180
Appendix 8: Observational Protocol Result of Fourth Meeting

Day/Date : Friday, February 26th 2016 Time : 2x 30 minutes
Teacher’s Name : Miss Nining Number of student : 15 (6 boys and 9 girsl)
Topic : Space Shuttle Place : Kindergarten B
Teache Accepts feelings 1 IIIII I 6
r Praise or 2 IIIII IIIII 15
indirec encouragement IIIII
t talk IIII
Accepts or uses 3 4
ideas of students
Teache Asking questions 4 IIIII IIIII IIIII 15
r direct Lecturing/lecture 5 IIIII IIIII 14
talk IIII
Giving direction 6 IIIII IIIII 15
IIIII
Criticizing or 7 IIII 4
Studen Student talk 8 IIIII IIIII IIIII 33
t talk response IIIII
respon IIIII IIIII III
se
Student talk 9 IIIII IIIII IIIII 39
initiation IIIII IIIII IIIII
IIIII IIII
Silence or pause or 10 IIII 4
confusion
T 6 15 4 15 14 15 4 33 39 4 134
ot
al
181
interaction
Ratio Formula Score
2. Indirect Teacher Talk Ratio ITT = 40 x 100 : 134 = 30%

(ITT)
DTT = 33 x 100 : 134 = 25%

(DTT)
4. Students’ Talk Ratio/ PT = 39 x 100 : 134 = 54%

Percentage of Students Talk (PT)
5. Silence or Confusion Ratio (SC) SC = 4 x 100 : 134= 3%

182
Extr Conversation Context of situation Function Coding Student

act Talk
001 T: “Good morning friends. On Monday Miss Teacher greets student Accepting (Acpt.) Response
(4) Martha told you about how to save the while starting the
earth” teaching activity by asks
S: “And how to save animal” the student about
previous meeting topic.
002 T: “How to say our mother earth?” Teacher was addressing Asks (Ask.Quest.) Response
(4) S: “Say no to plastic Miss ” question to all students in questions
the classroom
003 T: “Thank , You are clever ” Teacher encouraged and Praising or (Pra.) Response
(4) S: “Yes. Thank you” praised student’s Encouragin
response. g
004 T: “On Thursday we also learnt about Teacher gives the Lecturing (Lect.) Initiate
(4) around object and the color is gray from the information about what
earth. It doesn’t has their own light because will they learn.
they got the light from the sun ”
S: “It is a moon”
005 T: “Actually the moon is the earths’ satellite. Lecturing (Lect.) Initiate
183
(4) It follows the earth moving during the

rotation process”
S: “The only one satellite”
006 S: “And the star also” Praising or (Pra.) Initiate
(4) T: “Yes, good Sifa” Encouragin
g
007 T: “And yesterday we learnt about people Asks (Ask.Quest.) Response
(4) who might travel to out space. What we call questions
those people?”
S: “Astronaut ”
008 T: “If we want to go or travel out of space Lecturing (Lect.) Initiate
(4) we can go by special vehicle. We don’t go
there by airplane Garuda and Air Asia No”
S: “Garuda can’t reach the out of space.”
009 T: “We can go by Space shuttle” Lecturing (Lect.) Response
(4) S: “Space Shuttle”
010 T: “Yes Nathan you want to say Asks (Ask.Quest.) Initiate
(4) something?” questions
S: “ The rocket bring a lot of fire and
184
rocket”
011 T: “So according to Nathan. The rocket need Teacher use student idea Uses ideas (ideas) Initiate
(4) fire to be launched to the outer space” to explain about how of Students
S: “Me me me Miss I want to say rocket can be launched
something”
012 T: “How if talk one by one so all of you can Accepting (Acpt.) Initiate
(4) say something”
S: “The rocker brings the space shuttle”
013 T: “Yes. The rocket brings the space shuttle. Uses ideas (ideas) Initiate
(4) Without rocket cannot be launched to outer of Students
space. Because it need energy”
S: “The rocket is similar to airplane”
014 T: “Is it airplane?” The teacher corrected the Asks (Ask.Quest.) Response
(4) S: “No” student’s response questions
because the answer is
wrong
015 S: “When the space shuttle is in out space Praising or (Pra.) Initiate
(4) the rocket will fall down back to the earth” Encouragin
S: “Emm thank you Nathan for such great g
185
opinion, but we will talk it later”

016 T: “I think that is enough Nathan we need to The teacher stop the Accepting (Acpt.) Response
(4) work fast. Look at the clock it has been student to give their
fifteen minutes past ten. So today we are opinion because the time
going to make space shuttle” is limit so they can move
S: “Yes, I will make my own” to the next activity.
017 T: “So that’s way yesterday Miss Nining Lecturing (Lect.) Initiate
(4) asked you to bring old plastic bottle”
S: “I bring two bottles”
018 T: “Do we use these old bottle to drink?” Asks (Ask.Quest.) Initiate
(4) S: “No, it is dirty and not healthy ” questions
019 T: “So this is for Navisa, Nathan , Peter, Teacher distributed the Giving (Giv.Dirct.) Response
(4) Bia, Fani, Safira, Elsi, Fian” old bottle direction
S: “Thank you Miss Nining”
020 S: “Miss I forgot to bring old bottle” Teacher encourages Praising or (Pra.) Initiate
(4) T: “Oke, Nafisa will gives you a bottle ” student to keep continue Encouragin
making a space shuttle g
even she forgets to bring
old bottle.
186
021 T: “Say thank you for Navisa” Accepting (Acpt.) Response

(4) S: “Thank you Navisa”
022 T: “I think Fian and Nathan are better to Teacher asked some of Giving (Giv.Dirct.) Response
(4) move here. Leona and Peter move there students to move to direction
because I want you to see clearer on the arrange the better sit
projector ” position.
S: “Yes Miss”
023 T: “Thank you. Because we need to do Giving (Giv.Dirct.) Initiate
(4) many things today. You may share each direction
other and help your friend but please focus
to your own”
S: “I have my own blue bottle”
024 T: “Today we have own bottle. This made Lecturing (Lect.) Initiate
(4) from plastic when its fall down that’s ok it
would not be broken. We will also use paper
”
S: “Wow gold paper”
025 T: “Thank you very much Peter to play with Teacher remain the Criticizing (Crt.) Silence
(4) the bottle” student’s inappropriate or justifying
187
S: “….” (silence) behavior

026 T: “What color is it” Asks (Ask.Quest.) Response
(4) S: “Gold and silver” questions
027 T: “Yes, you are right” Praising or (Pra.) Response
(4) S: “Yes” Encouragin
g
028 T: “We also have red paper. What shape is Asks (Ask.Quest.) Response
(4) it?” questions
S: “It is a dorm”
029 T: “Yes. This is a dorm or we can say a half Teacher used students Lecturing (Lect.) Response
(4) circle” idea about the paper’s
S: “Yes” shape
030 T: “Take one red paper to make a corn Giving (Giv.Dirct.) Response
(4) shape” direction
S: “Corn shape”
031 S: “I can’t do it really difficult ” Teacher encouraged the Praising or (Pra.) Initiate
(4) T: “Don’t worry teacher will help you” students. Encouragin
g
188
032 T: “I have already put a tape. You need to Giving (Giv.Dirct.) Response
(4) peel it yourself, so it will be this shape” direction
S: “I can do it”
033 T: “Where we can put this?” Asks (Ask.Quest.) Initiate
(4) S: “In the top of bottle” questions
034 T: “Yes, we can put on the top of bottle” Teacher used students Uses ideas (ideas) Initiate
(4) S: “The hat of the bottle” idea about the how to put of Students
the paper on the bottle
035 T: “But looked at Elsi. She doesn’t need Praising or (Pra.) Initiate
(4) because her bottle has already had corn Encouragin
shape. Thank you Elsi” g
S: “Wow, Elsie’s bottle is cute”
036 T: “So this is the first step that we will do. I Lecturing (Lect.) Response
(4) will distribute to you one by one for Leona,
Fian.”
S: “Wow”
037 T: “Please peel the tape” Giving (Giv.Dirct.) Initiate
(4) S: “The white tape behind the paper” direction
038 S: “I can’t do it by myself. Miss help me” Teacher encouraged Praising or (Pra.) Initiate
189
(4) T: “Don’t worry I will help you” student to keep trying Encouragin
g
039 T: “Thank you friends, thank you for trying” Praising or (Pra.) Initiate
(4) S: “It is easy to do” Encouragin
g
040 T: “This way I will tape it into another side” Lecturing (Lect.) Response
(4) S: “Yes”
041 T: “Wow this is good Fioan” Praising or (Pra.) Response
(4) S: “Thank you Miss” Encouragi
042 T: “Let’s try to fold” Giving (Giv.Dirct.) Response
(4) S: “Wow” direction
043 T: “Thank you for trying yourself” Praising (Pra.) Initiate
(4) S: “I can’t do it Miss”
044 T: “Let’s do it together. Peel the tape, fold Giving (Giv.Dirct.) Initiate
(4) the paper this way until it become corn direction
shape”
S: “Miss I can do it”
045 T: “Thank you Fian. Nice trying by Praising or (Pra.) Response
(4) yourself” Encouragin
190
S: “Yes, Miss” g
046 T: “Wow very good, Bia” Praising or (Pra.) Response
(4) S: “thank you Miss”
047 T: “It is ok if you want to take in the floor Teacher reminds the Criticizing (Crt.) Response
(4) first. So it would not be disturbed you student to take the paper or justifying
because we need to do something with the on the floor so it would
paper” not disturb while they do
S: “Yes” the activity.
048 T: “The second thing we will use this paper Lecturing (Lect.) Initiate
(4) for wrapping the bottle this way. Oh my
bottle is small so I can cut the paper like
this”
S: “Wow. My bottle is too big”
049 T: “Can you do that?” Asks (Ask.Quest.) Response
(4) S: “Yes” questions
050 T: “You can name the bottle later when it is Giving (Giv.Direct.) Initiate
(4) done in the your own space shuttle” direction
S: “Miss I can use the paper as a mirror”
051 T: “Can we help you to tape the paper?” Asks (Ask.Quest.) Initiate
191
(4) S: “Yes, I need help Miss” questions

052 T:”Fian can you fold it yourself, can you?” Asks (Ask.Quest.) Response
(4) S:”Yes, I can” questions
053 T:”Stefani put the paper on the floor and Giving (Giv.Direct.) Response
(4) make the corn shape” direction
S:”Yes, Miss”
054 T:”So put the bottle on the paper and roll, Giving (Giv.Direct.) Response
(4) roll and roll until the bottle is covered by the direction
silver paper”
S:”The paper is slippery ”
055 T:”please hold it tightly, till Miss Nining Giving (Giv.Direct.) Initiate
(4) come to tape it” direction
S:”I want to tape it by myself”
056 T:”So after you finish the space shuttle. Are Asks (Ask.Quest.) Initiate
(4) you going to travel to the moon?” questions
S:”No, I am afraid if I can’t go back to the
earth”
057 S:”Miss I have done my space shuttle with Praising or (Pra.) Initiate
(4) sparkling color in the body of it” Encouragin
192
S:”Good Job Sabia, that is beautiful space g

shuttle”
058 T:”Next I will give you some colorful paper. Lecturing (Lect.) Response
(4) Your job is to cut into circle and to put into
your space shuttle body. Look at this friend
circle shape”
S:”A big circle”
059 T:”I will distribute the scissor please use it Giving (Giv.Direct.) Initiate
(4) wisely” direction
S:”Wow scissor I want to cut the green and
yellow paper”
060 T:”Friend, I will give you an example. I will Teacher explain the Lecturing (Lect.) Initiate
(4) cut one circle please try to manage do not procedure how to cut the
too small or too big and then after that take paper and put it in the
the glue put in the space shuttle it can be space shelter.
one, two. If you think the circle is too big so
you can make it smaller. After that I put the
circle nicely one or maybe four on the
around. It can be colorful too, you can share
193
with your friend. ”

S:”I want cut seven circles with different
color too”
061 T:”Peter can you share the blue and green Teacher gave the Asks (Ask.Quest.) Response
(4) paper?” example if they want to questions
S:”Yes, just take it” share the paper.
062 T:”The glue is in the middle friend” Giving (Giv.Direct.) Response
(4) S:”I take the glue first” direction
063 S:”It is very difficult” Praising or (Pra.) Initiate
(4) T:”Wait Miss Nining will help you there” Encouragin
g
064 T:”Come on friend do it yourself. You are Criticizing (Crt.) Silence
(4 kindergarten student now” or justifying
S:”…..”(silence)
065 T:”Peter do you want another color?” Asks (Ask.Quest.) Response
(4) S:”Yes, I need red color” questions
066 T:”Ok, friends have you finished?” Asks (Ask.Quest.) Response
(4) S:”Yes” questions
067 T:”The next step is we will paste in the Lecturing (Lect.) Initiate
194
(4) bottom of the bottle. So it will be this way,

one will be in the right and the one will be in
the left so it will be like this. And the
teacher has already put the double tape on
the wing. Your job is just to peel the tape
and put the wing on your space shuttle ”
S:”Wow it has two wings to fly”
068 S:”I am done Miss” Criticizing (Crt.) Initiate
(4) T:”Wow, good job Fian” or justifying
069 S:”Fian’s space shuttle is like people, it is Uses ideas (ideas) Initiate
(4) tall” of Students
S:”Ha ha maybe because it has long hair
too”
070 T:”Friend, if you have already done don’t Giving (Giv.Direct.) Initiate
(4) forget to clean your garbage and also give direction
me back the scissor”
S:”I have many garbage on my floor”
071 T:”This is the last step. We will use the red Lecturing (Lect.) Initiate
(4) paper for fire and then we will place in the
195
bottom of the bottle. Take one red paper put

some glue on the tail and stick it in the
bottle”
S:”The fire is red I will make fire”
072 T:”I think Stefani has to pay attention, you Teacher remain the Criticizing (Crt.) Silence
(4) don’t even finish your space shuttle” student’s misbehavior to or justifying
S:”…” (silence) be more focus on the
activity.
073 S:”Miss, can I take five fire papers?” Accepting (Acpt.) Initiate
(4) T:”Yes of course, Miss Nining will cut more
papers”
074 S:”May I go outside to throw away the paper Accepting (Acpt.) Initiate
(4) Miss?”
T:”Good Chalya, keep the class clean”
075 T:”Thannk you friend you do your best to Praising or (Pra.) Response
(4) make space shuttle today, don’t forget to Encouragin
show it to your parent ” g
S:”Thank you Miss”
196
Appendix 9: Blueprint for Interview guideline

To interview the teacher:
No TOPIC QUESTION
1 Accepting  Do you have any reason for using friends

rather than students?
 Do your students always response to your
greeting?
2 Questioning  Do you have any purpose to use
referential questions?
 What do you think about using display
(the answer is listed on the book)
question in your teaching?
 How long you prepare the material
before you delivered it in the class
3 Giving Direction  What will you do to make them
understand long directions, in case your
students are considered as young
learners?
 How if they misunderstand your teaching
direction?
 Why you don’t used Indonesia language
when the student difficult to get your
direction?
4 Praising and  What do you say when your students are
Encouraging able to answer your answer correctly?
 Do have any reason on praising and
encouraging your students?
 In what way you encourage your student
197
to be active participate in discussion?

5 Lecturing  When do you need to give an explanation
to your students?
 What kind of information that you usually
gives to your students?
 Do use always use English to explain
information to your student?
6 Accepting ideas  In your teaching, I found you intense to
accept student ideas. Do you have any
purpose with that?”
 In what way you accept your student
ideas during the discussion?”
7 Criticizing or justifying  By doing confirmation on student’s
behavior in class. Are they related to
classroom management?
 Can you give me the examples of some
misbehavior done by students? How can
you fix them?
 “What will you do to make them
understand, in you justify their non-
acceptable behavior through questions
instead of direct criticizing?”
8 Student Response  Did you gave any training to them before?
 Students tend to answer the questions
shortly when you required them to
produce student talk response ‘answer’.
Any reason about that?
9 Student Initiate  Students speak English in right grammar,
many vocabulary and correct
198
pronunciation. Do you have certain

treatment to make them as fluent as
that?
 Based on the observation, students seem
prefer to initiate their answer rather than
just do yes no question or short answer.
Why is that so?
To Interview the school principal:
No TOPIC QUESTION
1 School Regulation  Miss Detty, can you give simple
explanation about this school
background or purpose?
 So far, what have you done in order to
support and improve both interaction
quality and student language
comprehension?
 What is your purpose, to require
interaction at school time have to be
done in 100% English?
 According to the result, the students are
not yet given explanation about written
form. Is there any consideration on more
focus in oral form instead of written?
2 Understanding about  Miss what is your personal opinion about
interaction young learner classroom interaction
using English as foreign language?
3 Expectation  How about your expectation toward
teacher in lead the young learner
199
interaction during teaching and learning

process? Are there any special
requirement?
 How about your expectation toward
students in contributing their talk during
interaction?
4 Students’ behavior  The result show student talk and teacher
talk has almost similar proportion 49% for
student’s talk. Do you give them special
treatment to be active in produce target
language?
 The observation result also indicated that
students in Kindergarten A and B are well-
mannered. They easy to control and not
many students did inappropriate ate
behavior. How can it happen when deal
with young learner? Is it related to school
regulation?
5 Topic  The last, about topic discussion. Is there any
intention before decided the topic since in
four time observation I found in different
topic?
200
Appendix 10:
Interview result with classroom teacher
No Researcher Teacher
1 Accepting
 When you enter the classroom  I want to be their friend, not as a
you greet your student by teacher. So as the result we can
using the expression of tell the story and we can learn
“good morning, friends?” together. Not as a teacher and
Do you have any reason for student I will lean together with
using friends rather than them as a friend.
students?  Yes, they always response my
 Do your students always greeting usually in the
response to your greeting? beginning of the class before we
learn together in classroom.
2 Questioning
 You intense to use referential  I want student to explore their
questions to asked your idea. So that’s why we don’t ask
students. Do you have any about yes no question but we
purpose with that? want to know their own
understanding about the lesson.
 What do you think about using  Usually we only use power point
display (the answer is listed slide such as pictures and
on the book) question in your videos. The book is used in time
teaching? table class in the morning. They
can easily find the book in the
library in this school.
 How long you prepare the  The teacher has prepared the
material before you delivered material the day before we
it in the class? teach the students. And after
201
that we will inform the student

about the topic will be
discussed. Sometimes we also
use the book to look more about
the topic with the story also.
Usually we have time after
snack about 15-30 minutes, we
have prepared the book so the
student can read it by
themselves or learn together
with the teacher.
 How if your student can not  Actually there is no incorrect or
answer your questions correct answer. When the
correctly? answer is just too far out of
context we just remind them. We
can say “we can talk about that
next time, we do not discuss it
today”.
3 Giving Direction
 I watched the recording of  Usually we know that they are
your teaching, that you understand by doing what the
always gives your student a direction is. For the example in
long and complicated exploration time we ask them to
direction. What will you do draw something, they will draw
to make them understand, in what should they draw with the
case your students are direction like that. When the
considered as young student have not understand the
learners? direction, we will repeat the
direction. One day we ask them
202
to draw animal in the desert but

they draw bear. We as a teacher
ask “does the bear live in the
desert?”
 How if they misunderstand  We do not directly correct them
your teaching direction? when the students do not
understand our direction. What
usually we do is to stimulate
them to aware their own
mistake and corrected by
themselves.
 Why you don’t used Indonesia  We only use Bahasa only in
language when the student moral education sometime we
difficult to get your use Bahasa for the student of
direction? what we will say and do for
moral lesson. Moral lesson
sometime in the morning and
during the class. Usually
related to the team, sometime
we saw in the power point
“what we should do for our
country? “We don’t through the
garbage to our country” and
sometime we also repeat in
Bahasa “gak boleh buang
sampah di sungai”. For
learning activity we use
English.
4 Praising and Encouraging
203
 What do you say when your  Usually we gave a star with the
students are able to answer crayon and also sticker.
your answer correctly? Sometime we have question to
the student, no one in the
classroom forget the answer but
if there is a student who answer
it because she/he remember we
give them a star or sticker.
 Do have any reason on  Actually no. Usually when they
praising and encouraging need more support from the
your students? teacher to answer. For the
example if the students are so
silence and then as a teacher I
will say “I will give you a star if
you answer the questions” in
order to encourage them.
 In what way you encourage  Usually the passive students we
your student to be active put them in the front near from
participate in discussion? the teacher so they can
understand the direction,
explanation that we give to
them. That is why you can see in
the beginning of the lesson I
arrange the seat position of the
students. The passive students
will stay in front of the teacher
and the active one will sit at the
back. Actually the passive
students do not mean they are
not smart but they need more
204
focus they play with the shoes,

their hair or keep talking each
other. That is the reason I
arrange the sit position to make
them give extra attention to the
lesson.
6 Lecturing
 When do you need to give an  Every week we learn about sub-
explanation to your students? theme so in one day we learn
about knowledge. For example
this week we will learn about
astronaut so one day we will
talk everything about
astronaut? In the next day we
will create for example the
astronauts’ food. The activity is
related to the other previous
day such as discussion and
exploration.
 What kind of information that  Usually we give explanation
you usually gives to your about facts such as teacher
students? personal experience or
knowledge to the students. So it
can be another input for
students’ understanding.
 Do use always use English to  First we use English but if the
explain information to your term is too complicated we
student? usually use Bahasa. For
example we discussed about
205
leaves and “what is this like a

line in the leave here” teacher
said “in bahasa Indonesia we
called it tulang daun”. We use
bahasa only when there is new
vocabulary and I think it is also
new for them even in Bahasa.
But I rarely speak in Bahasa
because so far they can
understand what I have said
since they are so smart to
receive all the new information.
Sometimes they know more
rather than us as teacher. They
like to watch the television,
watch movie and see in the
book. For example I said “look
at this picture this is
atmosphere that protect our
earth” and one of student said
“I know atmosphere I watch
from the television program talk
about human planet”. In this
case I learnt a lot from them.
 How do you make sure that  Usually if we have enough time
they understand on your we will review the explanation
explanation? in the end of lesson. Or teacher
will review the lesson the next
day of lesson to check students’
206
understanding. From that way

teacher can know who is
listening to the teacher and who
is not.
 As I observed during your  Long explanation sometimes we
teaching, I realize that your have 9 until 11. Actually we
explanations were long explained first 30-40 minutes.
enough. Is there any reason After that we do some
why you gave the long exploration activities related to
explanation to them? the topic such as craft, drawing
or role play that we have
already explained. So that is
why long explanation is the
effective for teacher to give
students enough input incase
teacher as the source of
learning process.
 As far as I know the topic  On Friday we have break down
have given to the students activity with curriculum
are complicated enough for division. In break down part we
their age. How can you will decide the topic for the
decide the certain topic and following week. The topic can
do you have any special be from teacher idea and what
consideration for choosing is happening around us. So the
the topic? discussion will be interesting
since students give their
attention to the topic they like
much.
7 Accepting ideas
207
 In your teaching, I found you  Actually there is no incorrect or

intense to accept student correct answer. When the ideas
ideas. Do you have any are still related to the topic I
purpose with that?” will accept it. The other reason
is to enrich the discussion since
there are will be various ideas
both from the teacher and
students. In addition, to respect
to student ideas so next time
they will express their ideas
without any afraid of being
rejecting”
 In what way you accept your  “Sometimes, when I think that
student ideas during the student ideas is good and
discussion?” related to the topic. I will re-use
it in class by repeating so other
student are able to know it. In
that way, students also active
participate in discussion in
contributing their own ideas
such as opinion, experiences
and their background
knowledge they get when they
are not in school time ”
8 Criticizing or justifying
 As I saw in the video, you  Yes, off course. Actually as a
ask your student whether teacher we need to cross check
they are in the right group or the information that we give
not, whether their “MAP” is and how they get the
208
correct or wrong”. Do have information. So that’s why

any reason to always teacher moves around the class
confirm your student’s in order to check one by one.
response? When students give their
opinion, I will not directly
adjudge whether it is right or
wrong answer. As I said before
the goal is to stimulate them to
express their opinion, idea
using target language. By
saying “is that true? “Are you
sure?” usually after that
student will rethink their
answer and later they will be
able to find their own mistake
and fix their answer by
themselves.
 By doing confirmation on  The kindergarten students are
student’s behavior in class. consider old enough. In the
Are they related to beginning the lesson we have
classroom management? already discusses the rule in
the classroom. So when the
student act misbehavior during
the class teacher will remind
them about the rule. If one
student keep playing with the
staff teacher will inform them
about first warning, second,
and third. The third warning
209
can be “you can stay outside

for five minutes” after that they
will come back to the
classroom act nothing
happened.
 Can you give me the  As far teacher only give a
examples of some warning to the students “don’t
misbehavior done by play with the shoes”. When we
students? How can you fix send out for five minutes at
them? most to make them realize and
stop doing misbehavior action
during classroom. They have
never rebel the teacher because
they understand the rule and
follow the instruction. That
also become the classroom
management to keep the class
being smooth and to control
students’ behavior.
 “What will you do to make  “Usually we know that they are
them understand, in you understand my justification by
justify their non-acceptable observing their behavior. For
behavior through questions example in the class discussion
instead of direct there is certain student who
criticizing?” busy with her shoes, hair or
book. As a teacher I will
criticize her by saying “Leona,
are you want to play outside or
listen to me? After that the
210
student should stop her activity

and listen to the teacher. But if
not I will give more action such
as ask her to play outside for 5
minutes.
8 Student Response
 Based on the interview, I  We don’t give them special
found the students were able training to the students. When
to answer such complicated there is a guest come they will
question and also gave their act normally. We only inform
personal opinion. Did you them about the guest. They will
gave any training to them interest to the new people. They
before? will listen to the information
given by new people in class. In
addition, they love to interact
with new person using English.
 Students tend to answer the  The students’ likes to talk by their
questions shortly when you own idea rather just answer yes
required them to produce no questions. I also prefer to
student talk response ask them to produce longer
‘answer’. Any reason about answer so that they can speak
that? more to produce target
language.
9 Student Initiate
 Students speak English in right  We use English everyday even
grammar, many vocabulary some of them use English to
and correct pronunciation. communicate with their family.
211
Do you have certain They get input not only from

treatment to make them as school so they learning by
fluent as that? doing. They listen to the
teacher, movie, and song so
they become acquitted with the
pronunciation and grammar
they also learn by observing
people around them. The
teacher also help them by
correct them if they speak in
wrong structure. The student
“you eat what?” we will remind
them with correct grammar
“what do you eat?”. Students
are not allowed to speak
Bahasa in school time just in
Bahasa Indonesia lesson once
in week. So the students still
able to speak their own native
language.
 Based on the observation,  Yes, teacher usually tend to
students seem prefer to stimulate student to answer in
initiate their answer rather long sentence in order to
than just do yes no question explore their experience during
or short answer. Why is that the lesson. To promote them to
so? speak more in target language
about their own personal
opinion. Usually we ask them to
explain their answer. The
212
student initiate also can be

showed when they raise their
hand to give their answer, even
we as teacher really appreciate
how student initiate their own
response even we don’t ask
them directly.
10 Teacher’s understanding
 Do have you any certain belief  About teaching reading and
about teaching so that you do writing we do it in 9.00 until
not teach the student about 9.30 in the morning for time
writing and reading table. It is for nursery
kindergarten A and
kindergarten B. 10.00 – 11.00
we focus on exploration. So we
learnt about writing, reading
and bahasa Indonesia on table
activity. Kindergarten they
learnt about alphabet and the
nursery about pre
understanding.
 May I know your education I have been teaching in
background? kindergarten with English
language approval in Terban,
but I teach in Indonesia
 How about you’re teaching language not in English. So in
experience? Ananda Mentari is the first
experience to teach young
learner in English. I spend
213
almost 3 years here. I am still

learning to speak English well
with the teacher here with
correct grammar and
pronunciation.
 They learn English from very
beginning age start from baby
class, nursery class and
kindergarten. Most of them start
learn from Baby class there are
only 2 students come in the last
time.
 What is your opinion about

teaching English for young
learner?
 As a teacher. Do you know the

background of the students
214
here?
Appendix 11:
Interview result with school principle
List of Interview Questions for the School Principle
No Researcher School Principle
1 Miss Detty, can you give simple “I build this program for mothers who need
explanation about concept or help to take their children. Since, they have
purpose of this school? to go to work to build their career, which is
why I design this program for full day
school. We can be like 2nd parent for the
students. We teach the students become
independent and to respect each other. We
treat them like in traditional family, such as
give nutritious food. Actually everything
that we give is all mom’s job. Because the
mother is not available, so our job is to
replace their job. That become the basic in
making curriculum, and established all the
decision from that philosophy”
2 Miss what is your personal “In my opinion about interaction with
opinion about young learner young learner is the easiest way compare if
classroom interaction using I have to interact with adults or someone
English as foreign language? older than my students. Because they are
genius in their own way and they accept
everything that we give. We teach them to
speak English in the class and they follow
215
all the direction. Because they 100% trust

to the teacher, program and this school.
Even we don’t need to ask, the only thing
we need to provide is safety, trust and
relationship. I believe is not difficult for us
to build relationship, trust in teaching and
learning condition”
3 How about your expectation “Yes of course, the standard for every
toward teacher in lead the young teacher here are they have to be able to talk
learner interaction during to the students as friend not as teacher. So
teaching and learning process? we put the similar position as the basic
Are there any special communication. In term of classroom,
requirement? teacher sometimes act as a moderator in
little bit higher. But it is only during the
explanation time and presentation time”
4 How about your expectation “I don’t know the expectation. The think
toward students in contributing that I know is they come to school every day
their talk during interaction? and I want to see them happy. I want to see
them learn every single day. So if they are
going classroom happy and tell something
they have learn during school time in their
home to the parent, I think that is enough.
There is nothing they have to finish or
mastered in some skills. I have put the
standard that high”
5 What is your purpose, to require “The ideas why I make that policy in this
interaction at school time have to school. It is because I believe English is the
be done in 100% English? universal language that people have to
learn. If you don’t understand English at all
216
they will get lost. Nowadays, books, movies

and different kind of information in TV,
newspaper, internet. 80% or even more is
available in English. If they want to explore
and learn, provide them with Indonesian
movie or book will not be enough. That is
the reason why I provide, all the book,
movie and information in English. We teach
them to speak and understand the English.
It is my way to open the window of
language so they can see more outside the
world”
“Learning English in early ages is different
to learning English is adult ages. Because
in this ages children listen and practice it.
They don’t have time to process, for
example of they hear wrong pronunciation
they will speak wrong pronunciation too. I
am not afraid of that consequences,
because their journey is still long and they
will more speak with others people and they
will read more books, movies. Because it is
important to them to learn 2nd or even 3rd
language. The point is that they don’t need
to think about the formula or structure.
They just listen to the structure and they
speak. We want to use the golden ages to
build up the vocabulary and ability to speak
in English. For now it is enough, later they
217
can improve themselves”

“The last is, they don’t speak bad words We
control their vocabularies so they don’t
speak bad words. Since, they don’t have
any bad words vocabulary”
6 Do you provide a course about “No, not supposed to give them writing
reading and writing skill? because the regulation in kindergarten. We
not supposed to give them writing and
reading courses. Even some school do it,
but I don’t. The point is that they do
something because they want to do not have
to do. Sometimes if you pay attention more,
some of them really good at grammar
because they watch TV, they watch story
telling. But cannot make them as standard
at this school. I mean become like certain
student. So I give them freedom to continue
learning English later on, at least they can
speak and people understand them. Even
when we do mini trip and we met foreigner,
they can speak and the foreigner
understand. That is enough for me, my
children have self-confidence to talk to
foreigner without any doubt in making
mistake”
7 I found some students are able to “Yes, because they want to read. They are
read. How about that condition? ready to accept how to read they can read.
But if they want to read, they will not ready
too. We want not force them, because
218
forcing in this early ages become

boomerang at some point they shut-down
their motivation and it is very dangerous
for the future learning”
8 According to the result, the “We don’t have standard of grammar, we
students are not yet given concern more English as communication
explanation about written form. purpose only. But they learnt grammar
Is there any consideration on from the book they read, movie that they
more focus in oral form instead watch and finally because they are very
of written? active. The more they learn English in the
classroom the grammar become better. In
the end of semester, they will do the
presentation. The result is people
understand, what they are trying to explain
and say to us. Those become enough for me
because in grammar, later year of their
journey in learning English they will learn
more about grammar and everything. We
more focus in pronunciation and
vocabulary, even though sometimes when
the grammar is really bother, we repeat
after the correct grammar form. But, if do it
often I am afraid the students will get tired
easily to learn and afraid to express their
ideas in English. Once they stop using
English because they afraid or shy, we
cannot get their attention back”
9 The observation result also “There is no special training about
indicated that students in behavior. Once more, our philosophy we
219
Kindergarten A and B are well- are not teacher but we are the parent. We
mannered. They easy to control don’t force the children to know about
and not many students did everything. We provide them a lot
inappropriate ate behavior. How opportunities to explore their own idea.
can it happen when deal with That is why in discussion time is always
young learner? Is it related to lively. They always ask questions, express
school regulation? idea and they are given time by the teacher
to build up their own language. As a mother
you don’t have such requirement like a
teacher. Teacher will have to measure you
at the end of the semester but mother no.
Mother knows exactly how to develop their
children. Because of the philosophy at the
earlier, it becomes the fundamental all the
activities here”
220
Appendix 12: Pictures of Learning Activities in Ananda Mentari Kindergarten

School
1. Picture of teachers and students of Ananda Mentari Kindergarten School
Yogyakarta
221
2. Picture of students and teacher interaction in explanation time
3. Picture of students and teacher interaction in discussion time

222

Artikel PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Artikel PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

A STUDY OF INTERACTION IN TEACHING ENGLISH TO

Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

THE GRADUATE PROGRAM IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE STUDIES

A STUDY OF INTERACTION IN TEACHING ENGLISH TO

Presented as a Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

Student Number: 146332016

THE GRADUATE PROGRAM IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE STUDIES

motivated and inspired me to do my best in order to finish my thesis. My father, Drs.

The Graduate Program in English Language Studies (ESL) Sanata Dharma

and school for this research to support this thesis.

Thirdly, I would like to thank the principal of Ananda Mentari Kindergarten

interviewed, reliable cooperation and for allowing me to do research in her school.

My truly thanks also addressed to all students of Kindergarten A and B as the

cooperation in her class during observation times and interview.

Fourthly, my special gratitude goes to all the members of my family in

Klampok Banjarnegara. My beloved father Drs. Dwi Bukapto, my beloved mother

useful for further study and education practitioner.

May God always bless us!

Yogjakarta, August 24th, 2016

2.1.6 Flanders’s Interaction Analysis Category (FIACS) Technique 25

CHAPTER V CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATION

Table 2.1 Characteristics of Young Learners……………………………. 11

Table 2.2 Flander’s Interaction Analysis Categories …………………… 25

Table 2.3 Research concept plotting……………………………………..…33

Table 3.1 Ten rules for deciding code ……………………………………. 41

Table 3.2 Matrix of Flander Interaction Analysis………………………… 42

Table 3.3 How to put a code of classroom verbal interaction………..…… 44

Table 3.4 Observation Data Transcription………………………………… 46

Table 3.5 Guideline for data analysis….………………………………….... 51

Table 3.6.Table qualitative data collection types and sources of data…….. 52

Table 3.7 Verbal Interaction categorization…………………..................... 53

Table 3.8 Sample of interview questions with classroom teacher………… 55

Table 3.9 Sample of interview questions with school principle…………... 56

Table 4.1 Classroom interaction pattern in 1st meeting..………………….. 62

Table 4.2 Classroom interaction pattern in 2nd meeting …………………... 63

Table 4.3 Classroom interaction pattern in 3rd meeting ……....................... 63

Table 4.4 Classroom interaction pattern in 4th meeting …………............... 63

Table 4.5 The Results of Student’s Talk and Teacher’s Talk....................... 65

Table 4.6 Summary Result of Classroom Pattern Interaction....................... 66

Table 4.7 Sample of interview with the teacher........................................... 68

Table 4.8 Sample of interview with the school principal.......................... 68

Figure 2.1 Input and Attributes in L2 Acqusition......................................... 19

Figure 2.2 Matrix of Flanders Interaction.................................................... 27

Figure 2.3 Conceptual Framework................................................................ 32

Figure 3.1 Research Procedure...................................................................... 37

Figure 3.2 Data Analysis Tehnique.............................................................. 57

Graph 4.1 The Student Participantion Pattern.................................................74

Graph 4.2 The Distribution of Student Talk....................................................75

Graph 4.3 The Content Cross Pattern...............................................................85

Graph 4.4 The Distribution of Lecturing and Questioning..............................86

Graph 4.5 The Teacher Support Pattern...........................................................96

Graph 4.6 Accept Feeling, Encouragement& Use Student Idea.................... ..97

Graph 4.7 The Teacher Control Pattern......................................................... 106

Graph 4.8 Distribution of Giving Direction and Criticizing...........................107

Graph 4.10 Teachers’ Talk and Students’ Talk Ratio.....................................116

Appendix 1 Matrix of Flanders Interaction Analysis in Four Meetings ...................136

Appendix 2 The Overall Result of Interaction based Flanders Formulas...............137

Appendix 3 The Comparison of Teacher Talk and Student Talk..............................138

Appendix 4 The Blueprint of Observation Protocol……..........................................139

Appendix 5 The Observation Protocol Result in 1st Meeting ...................................142

Appendix 6 The Observation Protocol Result in 2nd Meeting ................................153

Appendix 7 The Observation Protocol Result in 3rd Meeting..................................164